logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 포항지원 2017.09.06 2017고단877
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치상)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

On December 3, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violating road traffic law (drinking driving) at the port branch of the Daegu District Court on December 3, 2012, and KRW 3 million for the same crime at the same court on April 11, 2016.

1. Although Defendant 1 violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions, Defendant 2 driven a balp motor vehicle with alcohol content 0.272% from the 1km section of approximately 1km to the front road of the 123th anniversary of the 07:15th day of Jun. 1, 2017, in the shape of alcohol from the 1km section of the blood alcohol content to the apartment road of the 123th day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the Gu.

2. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a motor vehicle with lurburged B, in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

On June 1, 2017, at around 07:15, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, has a red and inaccurate face color, and the pedestrian state has driven the said car with a clear distance, and the Defendant driven the road of four-lanes in front of the apartment unit in the shape of the 123-lane in the south-gu city at the port of the port, along the one-lane distance from the front side of the apartment unit in the front side of the maid River at the port of port.

At all times, there was an intersection where signal lights are installed, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to reduce the speed to the person engaged in driving service and to prevent the accident by proceeding well with the other vehicles' attitudes in the transition.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent in driving a stroke while it is difficult for the Defendant to drive the stroke due to the influence of drinking, and was negligent in driving the stroke in the same direction as the stroke in the front direction, and the part behind the stroke of the Victim C Driving who stops in the same direction as the stroke in the front direction of the Defendant’s driving.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s occupational negligence requires approximately three weeks of treatment to the victim.

arrow