logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.06.04 2015고단933
도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The Defendant, at the Changwon District Court on October 24, 2014, sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, or two years of suspended execution, on November 1, 2014, and sentenced to three times of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

1. On April 6, 2015, at around 22:45, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act, the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving), and the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol on April 6, 2015, driven a vehicle between C, which is parked in the Kimhae-si, without a driver’s license, and passed through the road front of the Kim Sea Library located in the Kimhae-dong, Kimhae-dong without a driver’s license, leading the Defendant to be punished as a self-driving driver who is requested by a police officer to take a alcohol measurement, and passed through the alley path in front of the “Ecafeteria” located in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, at around 22:55 on the same day.

At the time, at night and where there is no center line, the defendant had a duty of care to prevent accidents by safely operating by reducing speed and checking well the right and the right of the front line.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to take account of his 112 patrol vehicles, and was driven by the F (53 years old) due to the negligence attributable to his her her 112 patrol vehicles, and received the back portion on the left side of the G Nana-si operated by the F (53 years old) as the front side of the Defendant’s car.

Ultimately, the Defendant did not take necessary measures such as immediately stopping and checking the state of damage while destroying the back door, etc. of the said taxi by occupational negligence as above and destroying the repair cost of KRW 517,000.

2. The Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, as a holder of the said vehicle between the said vehicle and the said vehicle without mandatory insurance at the date, time, and place set forth in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. 1. A written report from an employer;

arrow