logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 안동지원 2019.09.25 2019고단236
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 7, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch, and a summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime from the Daegu District Court's Ansan Branch on May 1, 2014, respectively.

1. The defendant is in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) is the person who drives B cargo vehicle;

On January 28, 2019, at around 13:25, the Defendant driven an above cargo vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.164% and driven the front of the Dadong apartment complex CDdong from Edong to Ddong.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving service of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of an accident in advance by checking well the right and the left and right of the motor vehicle and driving safely.

Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant neglected it and went to the right side from the left side of the Defendant’s proceeding direction, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as light salt, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment of the Defendant’s driver’s above cargo vehicle, after driving the G Kan-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-k-kn-k

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence.

2. The Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (driving) in a state of alcohol alcohol level of about 0.164% in the section of about 6.2 km from the front of H apartment at the time of temporary border under the above 1.1 to the front road of CDdong apartment at the same time.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the above provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Previouss before judgment: Criminal history records;

arrow