(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.06.23 2013노6043 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.06.23 2013노6043

교통사고처리특례법위반

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The Defendant in the facts charged is a person driving a CF station or another car.

On January 17, 2013, the Defendant driven the above car at around 18:10, and moved the above road to the 13 complex surface from the luminous intersection to the 13 complex surface.

Since signal lights are installed at the front of that place, the person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to check whether there is a person who gets on the front side and the right side in order to prevent accidents in advance by reducing speed, and to check whether there is a person who gets on the front side and the right side and to drive safely according to the new code.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the above duty of care and neglected to find out the victim D (71 years of age, female) who was walking when the crosswalk signal, etc. is green, and had it go beyond the road by shocking the right side of the said car.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury, such as the soft-time therapy, to the victim due to the above occupational negligence.

B. The lower court determined that it cannot be recognized that the Defendant violated the duty to protect pedestrians on the crosswalk on the ground that the victim’s statement and the witness E’s statement, which correspond to the fact that the victim walked on the crosswalk when the pedestrian signal is green, are not consistent, and that it is difficult to believe it as it is, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, on March 4, 2013, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, stated that “the pedestrian signal was red at the time of the instant accident,” and that there was no false response as a result of the psychological examination conducted by the National Institute of Biological Investigation against the Defendant, which stated that “the pedestrian signal was red at the time of the instant accident,” and that the Defendant did not prosecute the Defendant on the ground that

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2013.11.21 2013고단1752

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.10.24 2013고정926

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.28 2014가단95136

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.11.13 2015고정876

-대구지방법원 2016.10.06 2016고단2685