logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2016.07.26 2016고단176
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who is engaged in driving of B-wing and freight cars.

On December 21, 2015, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicle around 14:20, and proceeded at the speed of two lanes near the 79.4km adjacent to the 79.4km of the west Coastal Highway, which is located in the west-gun of North Korea, along the speed of two lanes in which the speed of the Si cannot be known, depending on the inner side of the west.

The Defendant had the duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by accurately manipulating the steering gear of a driver driving a motor vehicle, on the ground that D Ma driven by C is followed by the latter. Thus, the Defendant had the duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by accurately manipulating the steering gear and steering devices of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to drive the stroke while driving the stroke, but failed to find out that the stroke belongs to the stroke in order to enter the stroke to the stroke, and received the front part of the stroke which the Defendant drives.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered damage to the victim E (55 years old) who was on the top of the cargo vehicle while driving by the Defendant due to the above occupational negligence, due to approximately 14 weeks of medical treatment.

2. We examine the judgment. The case is a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the same Act. According to each written agreement and the letter of delivery submitted by the prosecutor which are bound in the public trial records, the victim may have withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on July 12, 2016, which is after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow