logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2020.11.24 2018고단534
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person engaging in driving a rocketing car.

around 13:15 on August 17, 2018, the Defendant parked the above vehicle on the front of the road located in C at C at C when smuggling.

Since there is a slope, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance, such as accurately operating the steering gear and brakes of the vehicle to a person engaged in driving service, checking the situation of the vehicle that is lowered from the driver's seat, and preventing the vehicle from falling down to the slope of the vehicle with the wheels by installing a height trees on the front part of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and parked the vehicle on the slope of the vehicle in the middle of the entrance, without installing a height trees, thereby getting the victim G (W, 79 years old) who was seated on the front of the F Pharmacy located in E at the same time, with the vehicle cut off about about 40 meters in a slope of the decline, without installing a height trees.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury, such as the victim’s need to receive medical treatment for at least three months, due to such occupational negligence.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor indicted the Defendant by applying Article 3(1) and proviso of Article 3(2)9 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act to the facts charged. The fact that the Defendant caused a traffic accident by occupational negligence as stated in the facts charged and caused injury to the victim, such as the victim, etc. is recognized.

However, this case is a case that does not fall under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents for the following reasons. Thus, it should be deemed that the defendant who is a driver cannot institute a prosecution pursuant to the main sentence of Article

(b) The specific grounds are as follows:

(i).

arrow