logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2016.04.26 2016고단30
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who is engaged in driving a rocketing car.

On October 24, 2015, around 15:30, the Defendant proceeded with a two-lane road of 100 meters away from the long distance of movable property located in the Sung Chang-gun, Chang-gun, North Chang-gun, in a non-Eup/Myeon, at a speed of about 60km in the Si/Eup/Myeon.

At the time, the front door was a road displayed on the right, so there was a duty of care to prevent the accident in advance by safely operating the vehicle with the movement of other vehicles in the process of driving the vehicle by reducing the speed and driving the front door.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and proceeded as it is without reducing speed, and found it late after the victim D driveed by the same direction, and took an urgent action, but did not avoid the letobb, and did not take the above letobb, and got the victim E and the victim E, who was on the front of the above letobane, was on board the above lebbbbb, in excess of the floor.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the injury of the victim D, such as 10 weeks of catulation No. 2, which requires approximately 10 weeks of treatment, and the injury of the victim E, such as cathering the left-hand bat of the upper part of the upper part, which requires approximately 9 weeks of treatment.

2. The judgment of the court below was examined, and the crime of this case falls under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the victims suffered serious injury;

Even if it is possible to institute a public prosecution against the express will of the victims in accordance with Article 3 (2) of the same Act.

However, according to the records of this case, the victims expressed their intent not to punish the defendant on April 5, 2016, which was after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.

arrow