logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.20 2018고합1011
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The Defendant charged with the instant charges is a person engaging in driving a DNA franchise vehicle.

On April 18, 2017, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 08:37, and proceeded three lanes in front of the F in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E in the direction of completing the three-lanes in male airside, and changed the course into two-lanes.

In such cases, there was a duty of care to check whether there is a vehicle driving along the lane that intends to give prior notice of change of course by operating direction direction, etc. to a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle, and to check whether there is a vehicle driving along the lane that intends to change course,

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused a conflict between the two-lanes of the victim G ( South, 48 years old) driving with two-lanes of the same direction by the negligence of changing the course as it was, and the part of the H Hastasi's right-hand fences in front of the above vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc. in need of approximately three weeks of medical treatment due to occupational negligence as above.

2. The judgment submitted a medical certificate to the effect that the victim suffered from an injury requiring a three-day medical treatment as “scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sp

In light of the fact that the “Determination” stated to the effect that the victim was not injured by the instant accident, there is doubt as to whether the victim was not injured by the instant accident.

However, the following circumstances (i.e., ① the vehicle of the defendant was working in order to change the direction from the three lanes to the two lanes, and the vehicle was in the front section of the vehicle at the time.

arrow