logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
집행유예
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.6.8. 선고 2018고단665 판결
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상),도로교통법위반,자동차손해배상보장법위반
Cases

2018 Highest 665 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury), Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

Violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Defendant

A

Prosecutor

Min Il-young (Public Trial) and Han-chul (Public Trial)

Defense Counsel

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

Imposition of Judgment

June 8, 2018

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order the accused to provide community service for 40 hours and take 40 hours.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person who is a holder of a CNAS car and is engaged in driving service.

On January 9, 2018, the Defendant driving the said car which was not covered by mandatory insurance on January 13:40, 2018, and changed the lane to one lane while driving at the point of 390.4km in the Sing-gu Sing-gu Sing-gu Sing-si in the Sing-si Sing-si in the Singwon-gu in the direction of SuwonIC along the two lanes.

In this case, the driver has a duty of care to prevent accidents by operating direction direction, etc. to give prior notice of change of course, and by changing the lane in the situation of traffic in the front and rear left.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 이를 게을리한 채 1차로의 상황을 잘 살피지 않고 그대로 1차로로 차로를 변경한 과실로, 당시 1차로에서 주행 중인 피해자 D이 운전하는 임시번호 E 유니버스 버스의 조수석 쪽 앞부분과 충돌한 후 그 충격으로 피고인의 차량이 2차로 쪽으로 튕겨 나가 2차로에서 주행 중인 피해자 F(여, 39세)가 운전하는 G 레이 승용차의 운전석 옆부분을 들이받고, 그 충격으로 위 레이 승용차가 3차로로 튕겨 나가 3차로에 주행 중인 H이 운전하는 I 싼타페 승용차의 뒷부분을 충격하게 하고, 계속하여 피고인의 차량이 위 레이 승용차 앞 2차로에서 주행 중이던 피해자 J(여, 38세)이 운전하는 K 그랜저 승용차의 뒷부분을 들이받았다.

Ultimately, the Defendant: (a) by occupational negligence as seen above, damaged the victim FF with injury to rain ties that require approximately four weeks of medical treatment; (b) damaged the victim J, such as satis, tensions, etc.; and (c) injured the victim L (the victim aged 26) who was on board the victim J’s vehicle for about three weeks of medical treatment; and (d) injured the victim L (the victim’s age 26) by causing approximately KRW 5,248,452 of repair costs, such as car repair costs, etc.; and (e) damaged the victim D’s D’s vehicle to repair costs, such as wheel repair costs, etc.; and (e) damaged the victim’s D’s vehicle to have KRW 9,754,910 of repair costs, such as wheel wheel Human Adjustment; and (e) KRW 7,642,800 of repair costs, such as wheel-line exchange of the victim J’s vehicle covered by the victim J.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement;

1. A traffic accident report (1) (2) (actual survey report);

1. Written estimate and written diagnosis;

1. Certificates of insurance coverage;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (the operation of automobiles which are not mandatory insurance)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Imprisonment without prison labor and each choice of imprisonment;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2 and (2), and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Orders to provide community service and attend lectures;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

The punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the degree of injury of the victims, the amount of damage, the amount of damage, the fact that the defendant did not subscribe to mandatory insurance, etc. and did not have any economic force and thus, the damage of the victims was not compensated by the victims, the defendant did not take advantage of the fact that the defendant was the first offender, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., as shown in the records.

Judges

Judge Final Line

arrow