logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.06.19 2014노1297
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of the instant traffic accident, the Defendant was in a normal position in light of the progress of blue-rayed vehicle.

Rather, the instant traffic accident occurred by F, the other driver of the vehicle, who violated the traffic signal prohibiting entry to the left.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of violating the signal of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that the Defendant, not the above F, caused the instant traffic accident by violating the signal, by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated:

The F’s investigative agency and this court’s statement that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s vehicle which was in violation of the red signal, the statement in the investigation agency and this court of F, the J’s investigative agency and this court, which directly appeared in the scene of the accident while driving the vehicle immediately behind the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, and the I’s investigative agency and the I’s statement in this court, which stopped the vehicle in accordance with the red signals in the opposite direction of the vehicle in which the Defendant vehicle was in progress, are consistent and consistent with each other.

The judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant, if we look at the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's ground of appeal.

(1) The Defendant “Defendant operates a vehicle in two lanes.”

A two-lane immediately after an accident.

arrow