logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2015.09.18 2015고단811
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person engaging in driving CKa car.

On March 13, 2015, the Defendant driven the above car on March 11:17, 2015, and continued the intersection in front of the Eriju station in the Yacheon City D, from the direction of the Marine Products and Agricultural Products Center, to about 55-59 kilometers per hour in the direction of the new zone.

Since there is a private street intersection with a signal apparatus and a non-protective left-hand turn, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to make sure whether there is a vehicle that reduces the speed before entering the intersection and makes a left-hand turn in the opposite part, and to proceed with it in a safe way so as not to cause any traffic accident according to the proceeding signal.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by negligence, tried to proceed at a speed prior to entering the intersection, and neglected to perform the duty of front-time navigation, found that the car in the mast and the Gmotor-motor bicycle in the victim F (E. 71 years old) left-hand turn to the right-hand turn from the direction of the opposite direction of the opposite direction, was immediately discovered, and operated, but the Defendant did not avoid the opposite direction and did not stop to the left-hand turn to the right-hand turn in the front of the victim's driver's vehicle, and did not go beyond the ground.

Accordingly, the Defendant caused the victim's death by occupational negligence at around 13:47 on the same day from the I Hospital located in the Net City H to the low-quality shock shock by the surgery of trauma and the diversified divers, etc.

2. The fact that the judgment prosecutor's negligence is classified by the defendant is that the defendant has not reduced the speed before entering the intersection and that the defendant has neglected his/her duty of care.

First of all, there is no reason to recognize that the driver has the duty to follow before entering the intersection where the signal lights are installed.

Next, the defendant.

arrow