(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.04.07 2015고단5098

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 2016.04.07 2015고단5098

도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a vehicle with C low Pest another car.

On September 16, 2015, the Defendant driven the above car at around 23:25, and driven the road of the “Eju” located in Gwangju Northern-gu D, with one-lane distance from the edge of the shooting distance along which the two roads run toward the long-distance distance.

Since there are many vehicles parked or parked on the side of the road, there were duty of care to reduce the speed so that those engaged in driving of the motor vehicle may not be faced with the motor vehicle in a stop or parking, to take the right and the right of the vehicle well, and to prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s negligence without examining 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 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 and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and interest of the G

Ultimately, the Defendant did not immediately stop and take necessary measures while destroying the said rocketing car to be in excess of KRW 1,023,966 for repair costs due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. Written estimate;

1. A report on investigation;

1. The defendant asserts that a photograph of the vehicle involved in the accident (the defendant does not have any traffic accident as stated in the facts constituting the crime).

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the fact that the defendant paid the traffic accident as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court and the fact that the defendant left the site without any measures can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

1. The victim : “A vehicle was shocked by Defendant 1, and the vehicle was towed by Defendant 1 immediately after the accident.

“The testimony was made to the effect that it was “.”

Defendant .

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.02.24 2016고단2413

-인천지방법원 2018.06.20 2018고단3079

-전주지방법원 2018.02.13 2017고단2243

-서울동부지방법원 2016.01.13 2015고단1760

-수원지방법원 2016.04.29 2015고단5926