logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.08.22 2017고단917
교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for nine months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in the operation of Dystren vehicles.

On January 22, 2017, the Defendant proceeds from the two-lane road of the Do 2nd line of the Do 17:20, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the Do 648-do Gyeongnam-do, into two-lanes. Despite the fact that the Defendant had a duty of care to safely drive the road at the right side of the ring course, such as reducing the speed of the ice string, he neglected his duty of care and caused the victim E (25 years old) who was on the side of the road due to negligence and caused the victim to die due to the shocking of the 153-way 20:25 of the same month at the Hanyang-gu University Hospital, Hanyang-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Reports on traffic accidents, on-site photographs, and internal investigation reports (the details of receipt, etc.);

1. A death certificate;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents applicable to Acts and subordinate statutes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Selection of a credit cooperative without prison labor for punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Comprehensive consideration of the following facts: (a) the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act: (b) the occurrence of serious consequences leading to the death of the victim; (c) the surface was difficult at the time; (d) the Defendant deposited 30 million won for the victim’s bereaved family members; (e) the purchase of a comprehensive insurance policy; (e) the Defendant’s opposite nature; and (e) the fact that

arrow