(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2013.03.20 2012고단1591

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2013.03.20 2012고단1591

교통사고처리특례법위반등

Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 21, 2012, the Defendant: (a) was a person engaged in driving the car B, and (b) was driving the said car around 16:13 on May 21, 2012; (c) was driving the said car, and the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government heading 3 was driving in the direction of 106 in the 2nd apartment 106 direction, and was negligent in neglecting the duty of care to report the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the duty of care to prevent the accident to prevent the occurrence of the accident; and (d) was found to be late after the victim C (36 years of age, n, n) driving the car in the opposite direction, but it was not in front of the left-hand part of the car of the Defendant’s driving with the left-hand part of the said car in front of the said trop, and caused the injury to the victim by shocking the part of the said trop.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. C’s statement;

1. A report on traffic accidents and a report on actual condition;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Relevant provisions of the Acts concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in the Selection of Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. The portion not guilty under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention in a workhouse;

1. A summary of the facts charged - On May 21, 2012, the Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act: (a) around 16:13, the Defendant operated a car with B tecas that had not subscribed to mandatory insurance in the direction of 106, from the front door of the two apartment complexes at the two apartment zones.

2. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor first of all, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant was a motor vehicle registered as E in the date and at the place indicated in the facts charged, and that the foregoing test is a motor vehicle registered as owned by E, and that the Defendant was not covered by the mandatory insurance stipulated in the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act at the time of operation.

The Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2014.01.16 2013노397

-서울동부지방법원 2014.11.20 2014고단1937

-인천지방법원 2013.04.03 2012고단11567

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2015.11.24 2015고단1712

-울산지방법원 2016.10.14 2016고단2714