(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.10.10 2019노318 | 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) 청주지방법원 2019.10.10 2019노318

교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On April 11, 2018, the Defendant: (a) driven the Ctecacacacacacacacacacaca on April 21, 2018; (b) driven the front side of the upper intersection road located in the Ctecacacacac, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (c) from the lower bank to the lower bank, the front side of the two-lanes of the two-lanes, at the speed of 70 to 75 km per hour, depending on the one-lane. Since the location was the intersection where the signal was installed, a person engaged in driving the motor vehicle, who was in charge of driving the motor vehicle, was negligent in performing the duty of care of operating the steering and brakes accurately in accordance with the new subparagraph, but was negligent in driving the remaining signals, thereby causing the victim’s injury to the right side part of the motor vehicle and the victim’s injury during the day when he was in violation of the duty of care.

B. The lower court, based on the following circumstances in its reasoning, acquitted the Defendant on the instant facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s violation of the signal was a direct cause of the instant traffic accident, even if the Defendant did not withhold a direct judgment as to whether the Defendant violated the signal.

2. In light of the purport of the grounds for appeal that the instant traffic accident occurred adjacent to the intersection of the private road, it is presumed that the damaged vehicle with the U.S. drivered with the U.S. drivered with the U.S. was presumed that there was no situation outside the speed, and as to the violation of the signal, the victim stated to the effect that the investigative agency and the lower court consistently “a normal U.S. drivered with the U.S. code” was consistent from the investigative agency to the lower court, and the truth response was caused even if based on the result of the inspection of the falsified

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2019.11.07 2019노2323

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.06.18 2015고정39

-수원지방법원 2016.12.16 2016노4827

-청주지방법원 2019.02.14 2018고단1426

-서울남부지방법원 2018.12.13 2018노201