logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.26 2018노1136
도로교통법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is recognized that the Defendant driven a bus for the same period as indicated in the facts charged, and the Defendant was aware that the speed limitation device was wrong on the bus on August 22, 2016, and operated the bus until August 23, 2016, and therefore, at least for this period is recognized as committing a crime.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the driver of the E New Zealand Tourist Bus (hereinafter “instant bus”).

The user, person in charge of maintenance or driver of any motor vehicle shall be prohibited from allowing anyone to drive or from driving any motor vehicle, the devices of which are not maintained according to the motor vehicle management, construction machinery management or orders issued pursuant to this Act.

Nevertheless, Defendant A driven the said vehicle in a state where the maximum speed limit system of the said bus is set to exceed 110 kilometers a speed limit of 110 kilometers a speed limit on the roads across the country, including the roads adjacent to the Incheon Gyeyang-ro, Seo-ro, 12, Seo-ro, Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, and the roads adjacent to the elementary school, which was established from early August 2016 to October 10, 2016.

3. The lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, recognized that the Defendant was released from a bus speed-restricted device of the instant case and operated the said bus.

It is insufficient to see it, and judged not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

A thorough review of the judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, and considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

A. The Defendant, while driving the bus between August 22, 2016 and around February 23, 2016, was unaware of the fact that the speed-restricted device was released.

arrow