(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.05.18 2017고단523

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) 광주지방법원 2017.05.18 2017고단523

교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person driving BM7 motor vehicles as his duties.

around 13:30 on December 23, 2016, the Defendant driven the said car on the front side of the salary line to the two-string distance (one-day apartment) from the upper side of the salary line, while driving the said car on the front side of the 67 string line of the Nam-gu Seoul, Nam-gu, Seoul.

Since a crosswalk without signal, etc. is installed, the driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle, by reducing the speed and properly operating the steering and steering gear, and by checking whether a pedestrian has a pedestrian seat, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and got the front part of the bridge of the victim C(48) who dried the crosswalk due to negligence in driving the crosswalk as it is, and got the victim over the floor, thereby causing damage to the victim, which requires about seven weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (2) 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Aggravated Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, based on the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances before and after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions as stated in the record of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s first offender recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake, and agreed with the victim that the injured person does not want the Defendant’s punishment.

참조조문

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2018.02.20 2017고단1767

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.07.20 2017고정686

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2017.11.30 2017고정255

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2016.06.01 2016고정150

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.25 2016고정4062