logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.07.29 2013노904
도로교통법위반등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We examine the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act among the facts charged in the instant case ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant driven CT-100 Oral Ba (hereinafter “the instant Oral Ba”), which is owned B, around January 23, 2013, on the 526-4 front-dong, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, and that the Defendant was not covered by the mandatory insurance.

However, the defendant was driving the Oral Ba in this case, which was not covered by mandatory insurance.

Even if the Defendant did not have awareness that the Defendant was not covered by the mandatory insurance, the Defendant cannot be punished as a violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act due to the Non-Purchase of the mandatory insurance.

Therefore, it is examined whether the defendant was aware of the fact that the Otoba in this case was not covered by mandatory insurance at the time of driving the Otoba in this case.

In accordance with the fact that the defendant was aware that the Oral Ba was not covered by mandatory insurance at the time of the operation of Oral Ba, there is a statement in the original trial by the defendant.

However, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant was investigated by the police due to the traffic accident that occurred while driving the Otoba in this case and stated that "the police officer knows that he was not insured during the investigation."

arrow