logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.01.16 2013노397
교통사고처리특례법위반등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The court below found a person guilty of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents among the facts charged in this case, and acquitted the person not guilty of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation. Since only the prosecutor appealeds the violation of the Act on Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation, the part which the court below convicted is separate and finalized, and the part which the court below acquitted is against the Act on Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) can be recognized that the defendant was driving with the knowledge that the motor vehicle operated by him was not covered by mandatory insurance, such as the test of the defendant. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the charge of violating the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's intention, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

3. Determination

A. A. Around May 21, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 16:13, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant: (b) operated a car with B tecas that had not bought mandatory insurance in the direction of 106, from the front door of the two apartment complexes at the 106 direction.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below determined that the defendant operated the above test car at the time and place indicated in the facts charged and the above test car is registered as owned by E, and the defendant was not covered by mandatory insurance as stipulated in the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act at the time of operation. However, Article 38 (2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that "the subject of the crime of violation of Article 38 (2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is "the owner of the automobile," and "the owner of the automobile" under Article 2 (3) of the same Act means the owner of the automobile or the person entitled to use the automobile, who operates the automobile for himself.

arrow