logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2016.04.06 2015고단2281
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaged in driving a vehicle with a body of vehicle B.

On September 5, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 08:43, and continued the vehicle at the speed of 30km from the entrance of the above apartment to 118 km, according to the ice apartment 119 dong-ro 619, which would be the EXPO 610, Nam-si.

The accident place has a slope, the road is opened, and the view of the vehicle, etc. coming from the opposite lane is restricted due to the obstacle, so in such a case, the driver has a duty of care to reduce the speed and to check whether there are other vehicles in operation, and to safely drive and prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected to set a speed to the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle, thereby getting off the way from the opposite line of the Defendant’s vehicle to the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the victim C (17 years old) going beyond the center line to the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by occupational negligence, such as the alley chief executive officer on the right side in need of approximately 10 weeks medical treatment.

2. The instant case is an offense falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and shall not be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

According to the records, on December 4, 2015, which was after the institution of the instant prosecution, the victim may recognize the fact that he/she expressed his/her intention not to have the criminal punishment under the agreement with the defendant. Thus, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow