logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.12.16 2016고정734
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in the duty of driving a rocketing taxi.

Around 00:50 on January 30, 2016, the Defendant driven the above taxi, and led the frontway of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the Suhyup Bank from the front apartment room.

On the other hand, there is an intersection where signal lights are installed, so in such a case, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle according to the traffic signal and prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and, even though the vehicle signal is the red signal, did not proceed as it is, and there was a conflict between the two parts on the right side of the vehicle under the E (55 years old) driving, which proceeds normally from the intersection in the direction of the scarping in the direction of the scar in the direction of the scar in the direction of the scar in the front side of the vehicle under the direction of the scar.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered, by negligence in the above business, the injury to the victim G (V, 22 years of age), who is the passenger of the said FF taxi, such as salt and tensions in the scam for about two weeks, and the injury to the victim H (V, 29 years of age), who is the passenger of the Defendant driving, for about two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the occurrence of E traffic accident;

1. Each statement of G and H;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each written diagnosis attached to an investigation report (the submission of a medical certificate, written estimate, and certificate of insurance coverage);

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the case of operating a vehicle in violation of the signal signals displayed by signal apparatus is not applicable under Article 3(1) and the proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, but the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act is not applicable.

arrow