logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.10.30 2020노1183
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant did not reverse the victim’s right development to a taxi driving by the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant sufficiently recognized the fact that the Defendant served the right edge of the victim walking the crosswalk as stated in the facts charged in the instant case as the part behind the taxi driver’s seat of the Defendant.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

1) The CCTV images taken out at the instant accident site run at a slow speed without temporarily stopping the taxi in front of the crosswalk. Considering that the Defendant’s cab coming out, the right edge of the victim, who continued walking along the crosswalk, leads to getting out of the Defendant’s seat after the Defendant’s taxi driver’s seat, and the victim was aware of the victim’s right edge. 2) Although the Defendant’s cab driver’s seat did not directly take front of the victim’s right edge, in light of the victim’s right edge and location leading up to the accident immediately before the accident, the victim’s response and attitude after the accident, etc., it seems clear that the Defendant’s cab driver’s seat followed the Defendant’s right edge of the victim.

3. On July 5, 2019, two hours after the time of the instant accident, the victim visited the police station on July 5, 2019, which was about 2 hours after the date of the instant accident, and around 04:00, the victim entered the police station on July 5, 2019, stating that the police officer who received the report of damage at the time when the victim visited the police station was in a considerable state of the victim’s right failure

In addition, the injury diagnosis letter.

arrow