logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.08.24 2016고단1799
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a vehicle BM520 vehicle in violation of the Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving).

On May 4, 2016, the Defendant driven the said car under the influence of alcohol content of 0.243% while under the influence of alcohol without a driver’s license, from the front side of the Defendant’s house in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun to the front side of the E-way in D.

2. The Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act driving a vehicle above the border at the same time as that set forth in the preceding paragraph, and driving the vehicle above at the right angle from the front side of the above E, to the parallel distance.

At the right point, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by accurately manipulating the steering direction and brakes.

Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant was negligent in driving the vehicle and received a pedestrian protection fence to the right-hand side of the driving direction.

Ultimately, the Defendant damaged a pedestrian protection fence managed by the U.S. Military Administration in U.S. by occupational negligence as above to have an amount equivalent to KRW 837,00 for repair cost.

3. Any person who takes over a motor vehicle registered in violation of the Motor Vehicle Management Act shall file an application for the registration of transfer of ownership.

Nevertheless, even though the Defendant acquired the said BM520 passenger car registered for the goods of around 2014, the Defendant did not apply for the registration of transfer of ownership without justifiable grounds until May 4, 2016.

4. No owner of an automobile who has violated the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation for Loss shall operate an automobile not covered by mandatory insurance;

Nevertheless, the Defendant driven the said BM520 car that was not covered by mandatory insurance at the same time and place as the above paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's statement in court;

arrow