logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.07.09 2015고단1378
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

2. Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a ecoo vehicle B.

On April 4, 2015, the Defendant driven the said car at around 19:40, while driving the said car and driving it at around 74.1km away from the east-gu Seoul metropolitan area to the Yongsan-gu metropolitan area, and driving it at about 100km from the east-gu metropolitan area to the east-gu metropolitan area, and changed the lane into one lane.

At night at that time, and at that time, a DNA car driven by the victim C(n, 52 years old) is in progress. In such a case, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle is not obliged to change his course when it is likely to obstruct normal traffic of the franchising motor vehicle. A person engaged in driving the motor vehicle has the duty of care to safely change the way and prevent accidents by driving the direction, etc. in advance, giving prior notice of change in the course, and keeping the traffic situation well by safely changing the lane.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and changed the course as it changed by negligence, and moved the right-hand side side of the above Ecoos car into the left-hand side of the Ecoos car, caused the Ecoos car to shock the central separation wall by keeping the car into the left-hand side, and let the car turn back the central separation wall to the visual direction, and led the victim E (W, 44 years old) who was driving on the two-lane, to turn back the part to the left-hand side of the Ecoos car.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the injury of the victim C, the victim G (Woo, 20 years old), and the victim E, with approximately two weeks of medical treatment. At the same time, the Defendant damages the said tea to the repair cost of KRW 3,94,043, while immediately stopping the said tea to the repair cost of KRW 2,881,883, respectively, while destroying the said tea to the repair cost of KRW 2,883.

arrow