(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.10.15 2013고단3277

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.10.15 2013고단3277

도로교통법위반

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On December 2, 2012, the Defendant, while driving C urban bus around 12:50 on December 12, 2012, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant failed to secure a safety distance that would avoid collision with the car in the Ecoon driven by D, which is driven by D, one of which he stopped in the same direction, while driving two lanes in front of the bus stops at the bus stops in Busan Slock-gu Clock, Busan Metropolitan City, the trile Law, and the bus stops in the bus stops in the bus terminal.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was at the time of the accident and stopped in order to get passengers getting on or getting off at the bus stops at the bus stops at the time of the accident, and the fact that the defendant discovered and immediately after the departure of the defendant, on the first lane of the above road, the car with the column of changing the course of the bus in the front of the city bus and operated the bus rapidly, but the vehicle was not avoided, and the vehicle was shocked on the right side of the bus at the left side of the city bus, and the time from the start to the point of the accident to the point of the accident is only one to two seconds.

Article 19 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "When a driver of any motor vehicle follows another motor vehicle traveling in the same direction, the motor vehicle running ahead of it shall maintain a necessary distance to avoid any collision with the motor vehicle traveling ahead of it, if the latter stops suddenly."

If the above circumstances are the same, it cannot be said that the defendant was obliged to secure a safe distance because it is difficult to deem that the vehicle was followed by the bus prior to the same direction, and there is no evidence to find otherwise that the defendant violated the duty to secure a safe distance.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered under the latter part of Article 325

참조조문

-도로교통법 제19조 제1항

-형사소송법 제325조

유사 판례

-대법원 1996. 10. 11. 선고 96다30823 판결

-대법원 1997. 11. 25. 선고 97다41639 판결

-대법원 1996. 2. 9. 선고 95다23590 판결

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.03.29 2017고정659

-전주지방법원 2015.10.30 2015노719