logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2014.04.10 2014고정44
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving CT 100 Oral Ba,

On October 2, 2013, around 15:47, when driving the above vehicle, the front side of the E pharmacy D in Chuncheon City, was changed from the runway edge of the latter apartment, to the two telecomurine gate, the width of the road, and the unfurled speed.

In such cases, all drivers have a duty of care to inform the direction change in advance, and to keep the traffic situation of the front and rear left, and to change the lanes safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this, and caused an occupational negligence by driving a road along one lane and changing the lane from the one lane to the latter part of the G character vehicle driven by F(41 years of age and South) with the rear wheels of the above vehicle.

Therefore, the victim H (the 72 years of age, women) who was accompanied by the above damaged vehicle suffered injury, such as pleasia in need of approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. Six copies of a report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, a report on actual condition (1), and a photograph related to a traffic accident;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's argument about the injury diagnosis letter, unlike the above criminal facts, asserts that the defendant, unlike the above criminal facts, was absent between the vehicles parked on the right-hand lane at the time of the accident, and entered the two-lanes, and then entered the one-lane to avoid the sudden sound, and only entered the one-lane to avoid it, and the defendant was not negligent in entering the one-lane.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts are acknowledged. According to these facts, at the time of the accident in this case, the defendant was absent from the vehicle between the two and three lanes, and the road was obstructed along the first lane, and the accident in this case occurred by negligence.

arrow