logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.06 2017노7347
교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 8(2) [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

Ⅱ Of the individual standards, Subparag. 1(b) provides that “the maximum speed limit sign” shall be “to be installed on the right side of a road section or at the necessary point within a place” and “to install a supplementary sign at the beginning and finishing place”.

However, at the point of the accident as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “instant accident”), the speed limit mark was set up immediately front of the entrance of the charge at only some lanes, starting with the central separation line in the section where Tolthy access begins. There was no speed limit mark on the remaining lanes.

2) The Defendant believed that there is no person driving a lane prior to the instant charges, and operated a bus as indicated in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “instant bus”).

On the other hand, although the victim had used the underground passage, he was crossing the lane recorded in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “instant lane”) without permission, and led to the death of the Defendant’s bus in conflict with the instant bus driving.

3) In full view of the foregoing circumstances, the Defendant was not negligent in the instant accident.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment without prison labor for eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the order to attend a law-abiding driving lecture 40 hours, and the community service order 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following circumstances are revealed.

1) The Defendant acquired a first-class ordinary driver’s license in 1994 and once again acquired a first-class large driver’s license in 1996, approximately 10 years of freight driving experience and about 10 years of bus driving experience.

arrow