logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.07 2019고정2686
도로교통법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 400,000.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No one shall drive a motor vehicle or motor vehicle or horse other than an emergency motor vehicle (limited to an emergency motor vehicle for a two-wheeled motor vehicle) pass along or cross an expressway, etc.

[2019 High Court Decision 2686] Nevertheless, on September 11, 2019, the Defendant operated a two-wheeled motor vehicle with an exclusive motorway from around 3 km to the front of the D Tunnels located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul to approximately 3km in front of the D Tunnels.

[2019 High Court Decision 2687] Nevertheless, around 11:24 on September 20, 2019, the Defendant operated a CEBR250 R two-wheeled vehicle at approximately 1km from the erogtic erogic in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu to the entrance of the D tunnels located in the same Gu.

Summary of Evidence

[2019 High Court Decision 2686]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Reporting on the occurrence of the case, on-site photographs (2019, 2687);

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Reporting on the occurrence of a case, and the application of each statute to photographs;

1. Relevant Articles 154 and 63 of the Road Traffic Act and the choice of fines for the crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order is that the defendant is driving on the exclusive road as Obane.

In the meantime, the circumstances where the same crime has been repeated even once, and the fact that there was records of the same kind of crime before the transfer of this case, etc. is disadvantageous to the defendant, or that the defendant is running Kwikset Service Business as his occupation, and each of the summary orders before the consolidation is the statutory highest punishment, etc., shall be considered favorable to the defendant. In addition, taking into account the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime

arrow