logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.05.19 2016고정107
자동차손해배상보장법위반등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant is a driver of B observers car.

On November 19, 2015, the Defendant, at around 15:00, driven the said vehicle in front of the tecoon, Inc., Ltd., which is located in the tecoon of 33 p.m., the Hamsan Nam-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, about nine times, and tried to change the course from the intersection to the intersection at a speed that is impossible to know one way among three-lanes in the direction of the Union steel industry.

In such cases, a driver shall not change course when it is likely to obstruct normal traffic of all vehicles running in the direction of the change, and has the duty of care to operate the direction light in advance and safely change the course and prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to change his course to the right, and while driving the victim C (T, South, and 42 years old) who was driving on the same right side, the victim C is the victim, but according to the statement of the secondary inquiry into the damaged vehicle, the owner of the above E vehicle is D, so the victim is stated as D.

The top top of the driver's line in front of the driver's seat of the E-car owned by the Defendant was shocked by the driver's line in front of the top of the Defendant's vehicle, and due to the shock, the damaged vehicle was pushed down to the right side and parked on the road, the G car owned by F (F, South, the age of 32) and the victim H ( South, the age of 37) were faced with the I car owned by the Defendant.

Therefore, the amount of the above E-Vehicle 3,093,357 won is equivalent to the repair cost, each damage was made to the amount equivalent to KRW 1,091,066 for the repair cost.

2. The Defendant operated a B observer car as described in paragraph 1 that was not covered by mandatory insurance on the road as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The actual investigation report on traffic accidents;

1. Written estimate of each damaged vehicle;

1. Mandatory insurance certificate for any proposed vehicle;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (a statement by victim C telephone);

1. Each of the relevant Articles of the Act concerning the facts of crime;

arrow