logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2014.04.18 2014고단193
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

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

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (AD) and the Road Traffic Act (Non-accident) are those who are engaged in driving of B observers car.

On February 10, 2014, the Defendant operated the observer car around 08:25, and proceeds three lanes of the above section from the Yongsan-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Yongsan-do, which is located in the Yongsan-gu, Seogu, Daegu Metropolitan City, to the gate of the Jin-si cafeteria.

On the opposite side of the road, the access road was turned out to the opposite side.

Since there is a place where the center line of yellow solid lines is installed, there was a duty of care to ensure that a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle is obliged to thoroughly operate the motor vehicle at the front and to safely operate the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and conflict with the front right part of the Defendant’s car with the front right part of the victim C (the 45-year-old driver) driving, which was proceeding on the opposite opposite road due to the negligence beyond the center line.

As a result, the Defendant suffered from a saunchitis that requires treatment for about two weeks by occupational negligence as above, and at the same time, the Defendant escaped without immediately stopping a traffic accident that damages KRW 1,477,133 in total of repair costs, and without taking necessary measures, such as checking damage caused by the said saunching, and providing relief to the victim.

2. The Defendant in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is a holder of the foregoing B observer car, and thus, the said observer car not covered by mandatory insurance shall not be operated on the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant operated the observer car as described in Paragraph 1 at the date and place mentioned in Paragraph 1.

Accordingly, the defendant operated a vehicle on a road which is not covered by mandatory insurance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A traffic accident;

arrow