logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2017.08.08 2017고단520
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. On June 4, 2017, the Defendant, at around 09:20 on June 4, 2017, driven a BPoter Ⅱ, and proceeded with the front road of the Chungcheongnam-gun voice Group C in the middle of his/her arms and sale.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right of operation of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while neglecting such duty of care, did not go through due to the negligence of the Defendant’s failure to perform the duty of care in the front direction of the vehicle, was shocked by the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, with the part of the victim D (W, 50 years old) driving.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim to suffer bodily injury due to the above occupational negligence during approximately 16 weeks of treatment.

2. Determination

A. The crime of non-violation of an intention: Article 3(1) and the main text of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the charged facts in this case do not include the grounds falling under the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the

However, the proviso of Article 4(1)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that “When a victim suffers a danger to his/her life or a wound or an incurable disease due to a bodily injury,” the special provision on punishment does not apply to cases where an insurance or mutual aid is subscribed to as provided in the main sentence of Article 4(1). On the other hand, Article 3(2) of the same Act provides that “the crime of bodily injury caused by a vehicle’s occupational negligence due to the traffic is a crime of non-rape.” As such, Article 4(1)2 of the same Act does not provide that “where the victim suffers a danger to his/her life or a wound, or has a incurable or incurable disease due to a bodily injury,” the crime of bodily injury is a crime of non-rape.

In light of the above relevant provisions, the driver of the vehicle is on duty due to the traffic accident.

arrow