logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.07.16 2014고단2382
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant: (a) driven a B ethical cargo vehicle as his duties.

On the street of the chamber of commerce and industry located in 1:55 on November 06, 2014, the Defendant had a duty of care to take care of entering the road and prevent accidents by entering the road, when he had entered the road in front of the chamber of commerce and industry in front of the chamber of commerce and industry, which is located in 327 U.S. administrative Do-nam-Eup, Chungcheongnam-do, and the chamber of commerce and industry in front of the chamber of commerce and industry.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and got the victim C (Nam and 76 years of age) who was proceeding one-lane of the white sea area from the Mamag-ri administrative room to the left side of the vehicle driven by the victim C (the South and the 76 years of age) due to the negligence of entering the road.

The Defendant, by the foregoing occupational negligence, saw the victim’s 12-day pressure frame at the 12-day pressure frame, and dynamic E (V, 75 years of age) with approximately 3 weeks of the need and sleeps.

2. According to the records, the Defendant entered the road to turn to the left at the place where the yellow-ray center line is installed, and the fact that the traffic accident occurred due to the shock of the Oralab, where the head of the Siala where the head of the Sialab and the head of the Sialab, who had not entered the opposite line beyond the central line, has entered the road as above.

Even if it is not yet entered into the opposite line beyond the center line, it cannot be viewed as a case where the center line is invaded in violation of Article 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, which stipulates that the center line should pass along the right side of the road.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it should be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

arrow