logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
청주지방법원 제천지원 2014.01.16 2013고정165
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On August 20, 2013, the Defendant: (a) driven a vehicle with C7 tons of C7 tons around 08:30 on August 20, 2013; and (b) proceeded to a three-lane intersection (one-lane road, U.S.), one-lane, U.S., U.S.-dong, U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S.

The Defendant did not properly examine the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the side of the victim D (19 years old, female) crossing the road to the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right are

The Defendant suffered injury, such as “infection, tension, etc.,” which requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment by occupational negligence, to the victim.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant consistently stopped from the investigative agency to the present court, and consistently waiting for himself to stop and wait for the check, but the Defendant asserts that there was no negligence on the part of the Defendant, since the victim was crossing the path in the course of manipulating mobile phones, and was not able to see the way before, and went beyond the pipe of the Defendant’s own.

B. The victim’s investigative agency and this court have made statements as direct evidence that correspond to the above facts charged.

However, it is difficult to believe that the statements of the victim are reliable in that they are:

In light of the direction of the forevis, the victim stated that, while crossing the road in front of the road to the right side from the left side, the driver was faced with the front part of the pipe in front of the forevision.

If the victim's statement is in the progress direction, the outer part of the victim's right bridge should be faced with the pipe, and there is no understanding that the victim faced with both sides of the bridge.

With respect to the question about the difference between the progress direction and the upper part, the victim made a statement that the victim is not memory well, and that the driver seems to be against the front part of the bridge by proceeding as the fore part of the left part.

arrow