logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.20 2015고정4864
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who drives a Cran vehicle in the course of business.

On July 7, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 09:45, and led to the driving of the vehicle in the same direction as the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yang Jae-gu, along the four-lanes in the two-lanes in the two-lane as Seoul Seocho-gu.

In such cases, a defendant engaged in driving of a motor vehicle must accurately operate the steering system, brakes, and other devices of the motor vehicle, and shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed or in such a manner as to inflict any danger and injury on others, depending on the road traffic situation and the structure and performance of the motor vehicle, and has a duty of care to prevent accidents by reporting the right and the right and the right and the right and the right

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and caused a collision between the two parts of the right side of the victim's DNA driving, which was directed in the three-lanes of the same road as the hond road by negligence, and the two parts of the right side of the motor vehicle in front of the left side of the defendant vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused injury to the victim by occupational negligence, such as light scopical salt, which requires approximately three weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. The actual investigation report on traffic accidents;

1. In light of the fact that: (a) part of the Defendant’s vehicle extends over the vehicle line in which the damaged vehicle is proceeding; (b) the damaged vehicle does not deviate from its own vehicle line; and (c) the Defendant’s vehicle is flickly flicking from its front right wheel part of the damaged vehicle; and (b) the Defendant’s vehicle flicked the part of the damaged vehicle by breaking the vehicle line.

It is reasonable to see that if the damaged vehicle, such as the defendant's assertion, refluences the vehicle of the defendant that had already stopped, the part of the damaged vehicle's front or the part of the fenced in front of the front wheels, and the remaining part of the damaged vehicle, such as photograph, is in contact with the vehicle of the defendant.

arrow