logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.09.23 2014고정2215
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of CPoter Cargo Vehicles.

On October 27, 2014, around 21:38, the Defendant continued to go to the Han field restaurant at the Han field middle bank, the Han field middle school, the Han field intersection in the Dong-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon.

Since the location was an intersection where a red on-and-off signal, the defendant engaged in driving motor vehicles had a duty of care to keep the front door and the left and right from the front door of the motor vehicle from a close-off, and to temporarily stop the front door and the right before entering the intersection, thereby ensuring safety and safely preventing accidents.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not neglect this and did not temporarily stop, and received the front part of the G taxi in the victim F-driving due to the occupational negligence entering the intersection as is, on the right side of the Defendant’s driving vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). As a result, the Defendant: (a) caused the Victim FF to have the victim H, who was on board a damaged vehicle, enter the affected vehicle, with approximately 4 weeks of treatment, such as an an ad hoc dynasium, which requires treatment for approximately 2 weeks; and (b) caused the victim H to suffer from an ad hoc dynasium.

Judgment

In the facts charged of this case, occupational negligence is likely to prevent accidents by checking and proceeding safety through a temporary stop before entering the intersection, while checking the right and the right and the right.

The only evidence supporting the fact that the defendant was proceeding without temporarily stopping prior to the entry into the intersection is the F's statement. The F stated in the investigative agency that the defendant did not stop the red on-and-off signals and did not stop, and in this court, it stated that the defendant first entered the intersection and the defendant's vehicle entered the intersection so as to prevent the crosswalk from temporarily stopping, and the defendant's vehicle is entering the intersection.

On the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court are the same.

arrow