logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.10.24 2013고단4244
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person engaging in driving a bicycle without a license.

At around 09:50 on April 14, 2013, the Defendant driven the above bicycle and proceeded along the same roads for bicycles and pedestrians who do not have any line between the new dong-dong, Jung-gu, Taecheon-gu and new dong-dong, Jungcheon-gu, in the speed of about 20km from the direction of the new dong-dong to the direction of the new dong-dong.

In this case, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents due to the reduction of speed to those who are engaged in driving of a bicycle and the operation of a bicycle by checking well the right and the right of the bicycle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and found the victim C (three years old) who crosses the combined road in the direction of the post at the time of the post in the direction of the post in the new-cheon, and was immediately parked, but did not fall short of the above victim's left head, and received the part in front of the bicycle driving by the Defendant.

The Defendant suffered from the victim’s occupational negligence, such as the opening of the two-time frame, which requires approximately six weeks of medical treatment.

2. The judgment is a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and is a case in which a public prosecution cannot be instituted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the written agreement submitted by the defendant, it is recognized that the victim C (D, E as his legal representative) expressed his/her intent not to be punished by the defendant on September 25, 2013, which is after the prosecution of this case. Thus, this part of the indictment is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6

arrow