logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.02.08 2016노4234
도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) instructed the right side; and (c) attempted to change the lane after examining whether the vehicle is going on a one-lane; and (d) the Defendant was negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident.

2. As to the Defendant’s preparation on January 25, 2017, and the Defendant’s written evidence on January 26, 2017, which was submitted after the filing date of the appeal and the date of the closure of pleadings at the trial, are deemed to the extent of supplementing the grounds for appeal). 2.

A. With respect to the assertion that there was no negligence in the occurrence of an accident, duty to take relief measures and duty to report when a traffic accident occurred as prescribed in Articles 54(1) and 54(2) of the Road Traffic Act shall be imposed promptly by having the driver, etc. take necessary measures, such as providing assistance to the casualties caused by the traffic accident when any person is killed or injured or damaged by the traffic accident, and the police officer shall be informed of the occurrence of the traffic accident and take appropriate measures for the relief of the victim and the restoration of traffic order. As long as the occurrence of the traffic accident is in the situation where measures for the relief of the victim and the restoration of traffic order are needed, such duty shall be interpreted as a duty imposed on the driver of the vehicle concerned who caused the traffic accident regardless of intention or negligence in the occurrence of the accident, and the above duty shall not be imposed even if there is no reason to return to the occurrence of the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1731, May 24, 2002).

B. As to the assertion that the Defendant did not recognize the occurrence of an accident, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the part of the vehicle driven by the Defendant.

arrow