(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.06.16 2017고단958

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.06.16 2017고단958

도로교통법위반(무면허운전)등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Criminal facts

1. On February 11, 2017, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (Non-licenseless Driving) driving a B car at approximately 120km section from the road located in the Dong-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do, and the Ulsan-do road located in the Dong-gu, Ulsan-do, Ulsan-do, through a 2km road from the top of the reputation center located in the north-gu, Busan-dong, without a driver’s license on February 11, 2017 to the road front of the reputation center in the north-gu, Busan-do.

2. The Defendant in violation of the Road Traffic Act is a person who is engaged in driving a B car rental car.

On February 11, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car at around 18:09, and proceeded ahead of the two km of the Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, with the two km of the road located in Seosan-gun, Ulsan-do.

In this case, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to take into account the situation of the front and right-hand and right-hand traffic, and to accurately manipulate the steering and brakes so as to prevent accidents.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent in neglecting the driver’s license on the front side of the vehicle without a driver’s license, and the Defendant was able to drive the victim who was standing on the front side of the vehicle at the time of leaving the vehicle at the front side of the vehicle.

In the end, the Defendant destroyed the instant rocketing car owned by the victim due to such occupational negligence in order to maintain the repair cost of KRW 323,651.

3. No automobile which is not covered by mandatory insurance in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Insurance shall be operated on the road;

Nevertheless, the Defendant operated the B car rental car owned by the Defendant, which was not covered by the automobile mandatory insurance, such as Paragraph 1, at the same time and place as Paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. The survey report, the mandatory insurance inquiry, the driver's license ledger, and black stuff.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2016.09.27 2016고단2610

-울산지방법원 2017.02.16 2016고단3737

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.31 2017고정1886

-춘천지방법원 영월지원 2018.11.13 2018고단378

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.08.24 2016고단2400