logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.05 2018노1682
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the circumstances, etc. at the time of the instant accident identified in the closed circuit television (CCTV) image, the gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was crossing immediately before crossing the sidewalk to a two-wheeled vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) as indicated in the instant facts charged, immediately before crossing the sidewalk to the left side and the right side part of the instant vehicle, is lower in credibility; and (b) such a color is not distinguishable due to the weather of the said video.

In addition, K's statement consistent with the defendant's argument is low in the light of the relationship with the defendant, etc.

Therefore, the instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s occupational negligence in the course of operating a vehicle in breach of the duty of care under Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act, and it constitutes a violation of the method of crossing the sidewalk under the proviso of Article 3(2)9 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. However, the lower court did not recognize it, but sentenced the dismissal of the public prosecution on the ground that the instant vehicle is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance policy. In so determining,

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in driving a two-wheeled vehicle CCA110.

On December 17, 2017, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 17:50 on December 17, 2017, and proceeded to the roadway from the front of the E shop located in Pyeongtaek-si D.

They are divided into a sidewalk and a roadway, and they can pass across the sidewalk, but in such cases, the driver of the horse has the duty of care to temporarily stop immediately before crossing the sidewalk, so as not to obstruct the passage of pedestrians after examining the left side and the right side.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and properly look at the surrounding area.

arrow