logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.05.19 2016고단64
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged is the person who is engaged in driving of CSpo-type vehicles.

At around 19:00 on December 13, 2015, the Defendant was driving at a speed of about 60 km in the direction of gold village from the monthly harassment level to the two-lanes in the territory of the Doha-ri, the 19:00 on December 13, 2015.

At that time, there was a crosswalk installed in the front direction of the driving, so in such a case, the driver engaged in driving business has a duty of care to drive safely, such as the existence of pedestrians and the progress of checking the front door and the left and right by reducing the speed of the driver.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and followed the victim D (78 3) who cross the road to the port from the right side of the course of the course of the course without pedestrian red signals by the negligence of the course of the course of the course.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victim at the Gyeonggi-do Medical Center of the Republic of Korea, which was sent after around December 13, 2015, by occupational negligence.

Maz.

1. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion was not negligent in breach of occupational duty under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be punished for committing a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

2. Determination

A. A driver who operates a road on the relevant legal doctrine may not be held liable to the driver for breach of duty of care in the course of performing his/her duty of care, insofar as the driver trusted to comply with all traffic laws and regulations and operated based on such trust.

However, such principle of trust is only excluded in a case where there are special circumstances in which a person involved in traffic cannot be trusted to drive or walk on a motor vehicle in compliance with all road traffic-related laws and regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do4078, Jul. 29, 2010; 85Do1893, Nov. 12, 1985).

arrow