logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.08.11 2015고단752
도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of CKaman vehicle.

On April 11, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at a speed of about 30-40 km in the direction of Giman ICT in the direction of Gimanan ICT, after driving the said vehicle at a speed of about 30-40 km, in the direction of Giman ICT, from the backside of the front intersection.

In this case, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to reduce speed and properly look at the front, rear, and properly manipulate the steering system, brakes, and other devices of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and stopped the victim's knife vehicle, which was stopped on the front side, but caused damage to the left side. The part of the victim's knife part before the right side of the Defendant's driving vehicle, which led to a shock of the part of the victim's knife.

The Defendant, by negligence in the course of performing his duties, destroyed the damaged vehicle to be in excess of KRW 835,455, and escaped without taking any measures.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police officers and prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, on-site photographs, and a traffic accident report;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. 피고인의 주장 피고인은, 첫째, 피고인이 사고 당시 충격을 전혀 느끼지 못하여 사고 사실을 인식하지 못하였으므로, 필요한 조치를 취하지 아니하고 현장을 이탈한 점에 관한 고의가 없었고, 둘째, ① 위와 같이 피고인이 사고 당시 충격을 전혀 느끼지 못한 점, ② 피해자는 수사기관에서 "쿵 하는 소리가 났지만 차량이 크게...

arrow