logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2014.11.25 2014고단1905
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a car B K7 vehicle.

On March 6, 2014, the Defendant driven the said car on March 14:15, 2014, and led the Defendant to drive the said car, one lane of the sexual day-to-day distance in the Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungwon-gu.

Since there is a place that is designated as a children protection zone, there was a duty of care to drive a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle with due care for the safety of children, such as reducing the speed and displaying the bank.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded to the right side of the victim C (the age of 8) who was crossing the victim C (the age of 8) to the right side of the defendant's right side and the bridge was found to be late, and received the victim's right side door and bridge from the defendant's passenger car.

The Defendant, by these occupational negligence, sustained bodily injury, such as the 2,3,4th part of the right satisfaction, which requires medical treatment for approximately six weeks, to the victim, such as the pelle of the pelvis.

2. According to the witness D’s legal statement, the traffic accident of this case is acknowledged as follows. The traffic accident of this case is found to have occurred when the victim, who was down on the left side of the defendant’s running direction, was frightened to left the road to frighten on the left side of the road, and the accident place is one-lane road, and the vehicle could not speed because there are many students attending the road at both edges of the road. In light of this, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, which the defendant violated the duty of due care to pay attention to the safety of children in the child protection zone, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but it is not guilty in the order to dismiss the public prosecution as follows.

arrow