logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.07.14 2014고단2522
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a C Truck driver.

On February 3, 2014, the Defendant was driving the said motor vehicle on February 11, 2015, and was driving in front of the Geum-gu, Geum-gu, Busan. The Defendant was driving in front of the Geum-gu, Geum-gu, Kumpo-gu to the half-hick apartment.

Since the location is a private-distance intersection where signal lights are installed, the defendant engaged in driving of the motor vehicle had a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident in advance by properly examining the right and the right of the front and the right of the motor vehicle and driving the motor vehicle safely in accordance with signals.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and caused the error that he proceeded in violation of the signal to the right side of the victim D (Nam, 58 years old) driving in accordance with the signals from the right side of the victim D (Nam, 58 years old) who was proceeding in the course of the defendant, was shocked toward the right side of the defendant.

The Defendant suffered from an incurable injury to the victim in the days of treatment due to such occupational negligence as the right shoulder, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A traffic accident report and a survey report (CCTV image attachment);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents concerning Criminal Facts, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act alleged that the defendant's vehicle was not in violation of the signal since the defendant's vehicle entered the intersection of green signal which is the ongoing signal. However, according to the above evidence, the defendant's entry into the intersection while he was changed to yellow signal is recognized as violating the signal. Thus, the above assertion is without merit

arrow