logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2013.04.25 2012노1483
도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

It is true that the Defendant, on June 16, 2012, driving a rocketing car volume around 00:25 B on June 16, 2012, was subject to a separation zone for the prohibition of unauthorized crossing installed at the center of the two-lane road in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Nowon-do 201 prior to the two-lane. However, inasmuch as the central separation cost so paid did not intrude the vehicle line, and there was no traffic obstacle due to the decline on the floor, it cannot be said that there was a need to take measures to ensure smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic hazards and obstacles.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment (three million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The purport of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act to determine the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles occurring on the road, not to restore damage to the victim. In such cases, measures to be taken by the driver shall be taken appropriately according to the specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures shall be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3078, Oct. 9, 2008). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① a vehicle operated by the defendant was damaged to about 5 to 10 meters of the above separation cost due to an accident involving separation of the above unauthorized crossing, ② a part of the damaged separation unit is away from one lane of the road along which the vehicle is passing, and thus, it seems that the vehicle interfered with the vehicle traffic. ③ The above separation unit is separated from the foregoing unauthorized crossing.

arrow