logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.09.24 2020고단3348
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 12,000,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a driver car B high-speed car.

On May 1, 2020, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 21:40, and turned ahead of the D convenience points in Gwangju Mine-gu C, according to the two-lanes between E hospital and F building-side.

In such cases, when it is likely to obstruct the normal passage of pedestrians or other vehicles, the driver of the vehicle shall not cross the road by driving the vehicle, make a U-turn or moving backward, and there was a duty of care to safely drive the steering gear by accurately operating the front and rear of the course and the right and the right and the right of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, while neglecting this, the Defendant was negligent in driving under the influence of alcohol level of 0.103%, and the part of the front part of the Victim G (V, 29 years old) driving waiting at the next direction one lane behind the second direction was followed by the Defendant’s vehicle and the rear part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

The Defendant, due to such occupational negligence, caused the victim G to suffer the victim I (32 years of age) who was on board the victim I (32 years of age) to suffer approximately two weeks of clocks, tensions, etc. in need of treatment for about two weeks, and the victim I (32 years of age) who was on board the head of the damaged vehicle.

2. On May 13, 2016, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million by the Gwangju District Court as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

At around 21:40 on May 1, 2020, the Defendant driven a B low-speed car at approximately 5km from the bottom of the Grobridge in the Gero-dong in Gwangju Mine-gu to the front of the D convenience store in the same Gu.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant;

arrow