logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 제천지원 2019.05.16 2018고단404
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a KS7 car.

On October 13, 2018, the Defendant driven the said car on October 13, 2018, and led to the intersection of the said car, which is in the vicinity of the C apartment, from D to C apartment.

The driver of a vehicle who intends to enter an intersection where traffic is not controlled at the same time has a duty of care to prevent accidents by concessioning the way to the right-hand side of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so at the time of entering the intersection, and proceeded without yielding the course while the FF Capitala of the victim E (the age of 30) enters the intersection, and the Defendant took part of the victim's penta with the right side part of the K7-hand penta.

The Defendant suffered injury to the victim E, such as salt, tensions, etc. in need of approximately three weeks of medical treatment due to occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. E statements;

1. Report on the occurrence of a traffic accident;

1. An accident site photograph;

1. A medical certificate;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Screenings of damaged vehicles;

1. An accident site photograph;

1. According to the black booms video, the victim's vehicle is driven at a very rapid speed while the defendant's vehicle is moving at a very rapid speed and the victim's vehicle seems to be receiving.

Although shock parts are the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the left part of the victim’s vehicle, considering the fact that the victim’s vehicle at the time of crossing appears to have been slowly driven at the time of crossing, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s vehicle first entered the intersection. The victim’s vehicle has already entered the intersection at the latest when the Defendant’s vehicle enters the intersection. It is reasonable to view that the victim’s vehicle had already entered the intersection at the latest time when the Defendant’s vehicle enters the intersection.

Therefore, the vehicles of the defendant are.

arrow