(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.13 2017노8733 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2018.04.13 2017노8733

도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Although the gist of the grounds for appeal did not produce any non-products at the site of each vehicle accident listed in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “each accident of this case”), considering the following: (a) although the Defendant was in contact with the damaged vehicle, and went away from the above site; (b) the Defendant denied that the Defendant had not driven the police officer due to a witness’s report; (c) the Defendant could have driven the damaged vehicle at any time; and (d) there was a possibility of additional accidents in the course of driving and parking of the damaged vehicle; and (b) the Defendant took necessary measures at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident as prescribed in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act after each accident of this case.

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending legal principles and misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person driving C low-priced typ vehicles.

On April 7, 2017, the Defendant continued the direction of sexual Madco road D in front of the Madco-gu, Sungnam-si around 02:35.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle shall report the traffic situation well and safely drive the motor vehicle so as to prevent the accident in advance, and where goods are damaged due to traffic, he/she has a duty of care to immediately stop and take necessary measures.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and concealed the part behind the FST5 vehicle owned by the victim E (50 cm, FM5) in front of the above place, which was parked in front of the above place, on the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle. Then, the Defendant concealed the part behind the HK7 vehicle owned by the victim, which was parked in front of about 50 meters away from the 50 meters away from the Defendant’s vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant's negligence in the course of business is about 759,612 won to the above victim E.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.11.10 2017고정1104

-대전지방법원논산지원 2020.01.08 2019가합2025

-울산지방법원 2013.03.29 2012노777

-창원지방법원 2018.05.17 2018노459

-수원지방법원 2016.03.30 2015노4523