logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2020.11.18 2020고단535
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The accused is a person engaged in the driving of freight II by violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the Road Traffic Act, and the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Operation).

On March 15, 2020, the Defendant driven the above cargo without obtaining a driver's license on March 14, 2020, and continued two-lanes on March 32, 201, the 30-80km in the direction of the budget in the direction of the budget.

At the same time, the Defendant was behind the DSS3 car driven by the victim C (Nam, 32 years of age) in the same direction, and therefore, the Defendant was obliged to accurately operate the steering and brakes, to control the speed in advance, to proceed safely, and to drive the vehicle with safety distance secured by maintaining the safety distance in front of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not accurately operate the steering direction and operation system, and did not look at the victim's MF3 car properly and proceeded as it is, by negligence, received the victim's MF3 car back portion in front of the defendant's Poter II freight.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the victim and the victim E (V, 35 years old) of the said SM3 car by occupational negligence as above, respectively, injuries such as salt, tensions, etc. in light of the c,484,580 won of the repair cost, and escaped without immediately stopping the said SM3 car and taking measures such as providing relief to the victim.

2. The Defendant in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is the owner of B Poter II.

In spite of the fact that anyone is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle that is not covered by mandatory insurance on the road, the defendant operated the above cargo vehicle that is not covered by mandatory insurance at the date and place specified in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1...

arrow