beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person holding a Class I driver's license and a Class II driver's license.
B. On December 2, 2016, the Plaintiff, while driving a B vehicle on December 12:07, 2016, was negligent in neglecting the duty of care for pedestrians while neglecting the duty of care for pedestrians while driving the D pharmacy in the front of the D pharmacy in Seoposi City, and caused the Plaintiff to be faced with the victim E who dried the flicking crosswalk with the front gate and wheels, etc. on the front side of the said vehicle, resulting in an accident that the Plaintiff was faced with about two weeks, resulting in a loss of the right-hand st
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
At the time of the instant accident, the police acknowledged that the Plaintiff escaped without taking relief measures against the victim, and brought the Plaintiff into the name of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) and sent the Plaintiff to the prosecution on January 31, 2017. On February 3, 2017, the prosecution requested the Jeju District Court to issue a summary order against the Plaintiff under the name of the said crime.
Accordingly, on March 24, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license based on Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act (the date of revocation, April 22, 2017; the disqualified period from April 22, 2017 to April 21, 2021; hereinafter “instant disposition”).
E. On April 10, 2017, the Jeju District Court issued a summary order of KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff for a violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act (No. 2017 High Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 668). However, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the summary order and filed an application for formal trial on April 18, 2017.
(Reasons for Recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4-1, 6-8, Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. It is difficult to deem that there was a need to take relief measures against the victim at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and on the premise that the Plaintiff committed an act corresponding to the violation of the Special Act.