(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.24 2016노5440

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.24 2016노5440

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) is clear that the Defendant intentionally caused an accident, since the Defendant was able to place excessively close to the vehicle at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, and as such, it is apparent that the Defendant placed the rear wheels of the vehicle.

must be viewed.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged, but such circumstance alone alone is that the defendant partly caused a traffic accident and acquired insurance proceeds by deceit.

The conviction is insufficient.

The judgment of the court below is correct.

1) The Defendant was driving a day immediately before the instant accident, with one male string and alleyway on the day immediately before the instant accident, and was driving a substitute driver G in the direction of the low-income vehicle indicated in the facts charged.

The above car was stopped between 10 seconds and 10 seconds from the defendant's near to the road.

2) The Defendant: (a) passed by the left-hand side of a car stopped on the road as above; and (b) returned his body to the back seat of the car.

The defendant, even though close to the vehicle at the time, coming even on the back side by walking three posts, and at this time, the defendant's left side entered the back wheels of the vehicle.

3) Considering the fact that the Defendant is a driver who owns a driver’s license and is already a driver who drives a motor vehicle under his/her own possession, and that he/she has already gone through the rear seat of the motor vehicle, the fact that the Defendant’s left edge was close to the motor vehicle to the extent that he/she could make himself/herself feel.

4) The Defendant is looking at the back seat of a passenger car (which is presumed to have a conversation with a person who was on the back of the seat, but it cannot be confirmed whether a conversation has been completed or not), and the passenger car seems to have been swelved with the back of the passenger car, and the Defendant was swelved with the body of the Defendant who raised the pain by going beyond the quith to the back of the wheel.

At this time, dialogue has been divided into the back seat window of the vehicle with the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.30 2016고정1965

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2020.02.12 2019고정78

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2019.05.23 2019고단192

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.10.13 2016고단2157

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.15 2015나39578