logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2021.01.21 2020고단4038
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Power of crime] On December 30, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking) at the Ulsan District Court.

[Criminal facts]

1. A person who violates the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident) is a person engaged in driving a B smart vehicle.

On August 13, 2020, the Defendant driven the above car on August 13, 2020, and proceeded at a speed of about 30 km in the speed of about 30 km from the ncheon-gu to the E department store area of the D restaurant located in Ulsan-gu C.

At night, at the time, taxi stops in order to allow customers to board the taxi at the front time, so there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by safely driving the vehicle by driving the vehicle in a safe way, such as taking the front door well, operating the steering wheel and brakes accurately.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent by neglecting alcohol while standing in the front bank, and received the back part of the victim F (mae.g., 52 years old) driving while stopping in the front bank as the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Ultimately, even if the Defendant destroyed the above taxi to the extent of KRW 1,868,755 due to such occupational negligence, the Defendant left the taxi without taking necessary measures, such as making a stop, reporting the occurrence of a traffic accident, etc.

2. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking) driven a motor vehicle as set forth in paragraph (1) in the state of alcohol alcohol level of about 0.173% in the section of about 1km from the front of the H restaurant located in the south-gu and Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, to the front road located in the same 233m of the Gu.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A survey report and a vehicle estimate;

arrow