logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 제천지원 2014.06.19 2014고정7
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 18:21, 2013, the Defendant driven a rocketing cargo vehicle on October 18:21, 2013, and proceeded along the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the volcanic intersection in front of the Southern East-dong, Seocheon-dong, Seocheon-do.

The Defendant did not properly look at the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right side of the victim D (the age of 48) driving with the one lane changed into the one lane.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by occupational negligence, sustained injury to salt, tensions, etc., which requires approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim, and at the same time, escaped without any necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim, even though it was damaged to ensure that the said vans would go about KRW 572,786 of the repair cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witness D's testimony;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing CCTVs for traffic accident reports, photographs of the scene of the accident, diagnostic documents, estimates of general repair expenses, statements of 112 reported cases, and CCTV image CDs;

1. Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes related to the crime, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of failing to take measures after destroying and damaging property);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. In the event of the instant accident, there was no negligence on the Defendant, and even if there was a domestic negligence, the Defendant did not recognize the occurrence of the traffic accident at the time.

2. However, according to the evidence duly examined by the court, the victim is able to drive his/her vehicle immediately after the occurrence of the instant accident, and the victim is able to drive his/her vehicle in front of the Defendant’s house.

arrow