logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.08.22 2013노2027
도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of all the circumstances, such as misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant thought himself as the victim at the time of the instant accident, and merely did not immediately stop considering the surrounding circumstances at the time of the accident, and did not have the intention of escape and did not have the intention of escape more than 50 meters inevitably. Also, in light of all the circumstances such as the fact that scatterings caused by the instant accident did not exist on the road, the Defendant did not need to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act at the time.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles occurring on the road to ensure safe and smooth traffic, and not to restore the physical damage of the victim. In this case, the measures to be taken by the driver on the road shall be appropriately taken according to the situation at the scene of the accident, such as the content of the accident and the mode and degree of damage, and the degree of such measures shall be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of the sound form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1738, Oct. 11, 2007). The degree of the measures to be taken by the driver on the road shall be the measure to the extent ordinarily required in light of the sound form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1738, Oct. 11, 2007).

Therefore, it shall be deemed to constitute a violation of Article 106 and Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act by failing to take necessary measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2808 delivered on July 27, 2006). In addition, Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides for.

arrow