logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2019.01.17 2018고정427
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who is engaged in driving Bone Star Motor Vehicle.

At around 19:10 on May 3, 2018, the Defendant driven the above-mentioned vehicle, and made the front distance of the Dental in the Gu C to the intersection from the right side of the Kukwon Road.

Since there is an intersection with a signal apparatus, there was a duty of care for a person engaged in driving service to live well on the right and the right, and to drive safely in accordance with the signals.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and received the front part of the F. E(F. 47 years old) driving on the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, who violated the signal from the opposite side due to the negligence of left-hand turn while the vehicle signal was yellow.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by negligence in the above business, such as a spaculbing, which is in need of a water control for about five weeks of treatment.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of innocence) The defendant and his defense counsel argued that the defendant did not violate the signal, and even if the defendant violated the signal, the instant traffic accident does not constitute an accident due to the defendant's act of violating the signal. 2) According to Articles 3 (2) 1 and 4 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of the signal signals by signal apparatus, a public prosecution may be instituted even in the case of purchasing an insurance or mutual aid under Article 4 (1) of the same Act. However, the term "in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of the signal signals by signal apparatus" refers to the case where a traffic accident directly causes the occurrence

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do17117 Decided March 15, 2012, etc.). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this Court, the Defendant’s stop line under the yellow signal at the time of the instant case.

arrow