logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 경주지원 2016.06.08 2016고정79
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was driving a car volume of BM520 on duty.

On July 30, 2015, at around 23:00, the Defendant proceeded with a two-lane road in the middle of the D cafeteria in the front of the D cafeteria, on the information side, with a three-lane distance of common harassment, from the inside of the information side to the three-lane of common harassment.

At all times, crosswalks are installed.

In such cases, when a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle passes a crosswalk, he/she has a duty of care to temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk to send the pedestrian first and to check the safety of the pedestrian and to prevent the accident.

Nevertheless, if the defendant neglected to do so and proceeds, the defendant did not discover the victim E (at the age of 57) walking on the right side from the left side, and the victim E (at the age of 57) conflict with the part of the bridge of the victim.

In the end, the Defendant suffered injury that requires approximately 8 weeks of medical treatment, such as emphasizing 57 years of age, focusing on the fact that there is no open wound in two parts, due to these occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Application of the report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, the actual survey report, and on-site photographs statutes;

1. Article 3(1) and the proviso to Article 3(2)6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, concerning criminal facts, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the punishment shall be determined as ordered in the light of the following: (a) although the defendant is found to have violated his/her duty to protect pedestrians on the crosswalk, he/she is found to have violated his/her duty to protect pedestrians on the crosswalk, he/she shall be found to have been negligent; (b) he/she is fully agreed with the victim; (c) a comprehensive

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

arrow