logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2013.08.22 2012고단2360
교통사고처리특례법위반등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Justice] On April 12, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury at the Cheongju District Court on April 12, 201, and completed the execution of the sentence in the Cheongju Prison on November 27, 2011.

【Criminal Facts】

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a CEX car in violation of the Special Act on the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving).

On June 19, 2012, the Defendant, without obtaining a driver's license at around 01:25 on June 19, 2012, operated the said car, and led the Defendant to drive the said car along the intersection in front of the 2nd of the Masan-si office of the Hamsan-gun, Hamsan-si, in the direction of the Mamsan-do, in one way between three laness

In this case, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by properly operating the steering gear and operation of the steering gear and brakes well.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and found it late to the right-hand side of the road, and operated the hand to the left-hand side to avoid this, but did not avoid it and did not go to the left-hand side of the vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered, by such occupational negligence, the injury to the victim D (n, 53 years old) who was accompanied by the said car at the same time, for approximately three weeks of medical treatment, such as the 5th 21-day clever flever flever flever flever flever flever, and the victim E (the 21-year-old flevere flevere flevere flever flever flever flever flever flever flever fl

2. The Defendant in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is a holder of EXE car.

No automobile which is not covered by the mandatory insurance shall be operated on a road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant operated the said car without mandatory insurance at the time and place specified in Paragraph 1 as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant;

arrow