logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.01.25 2017고단2979
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle in C-Woo-ri Camp Habrid.

On September 20, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car at around 17:30 on September 20, 2017, and proceeded at the speed of the two lanes in front E, which is located in D, at Sinung-si, into the water sking intersection from the surface of the air tunnel to the water sking.

In such cases, the defendant engaged in driving service has a duty of care to ensure safety distance from vehicles on the front side to prevent accidents.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received the part of the G k3 passenger car driven by the Defendant after driving the G k3 passenger car driven by the Defendant in front of the said car due to the negligence near the Defendant, which led to the said k3 vehicle being pushed in front of the said k3 vehicle, and thereby, the Defendant followed the I set-off car driven by the victim H(34 tax) and then got the driver again to the front driver of the said k3 vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the victim F’s occupational negligence, such as the injury to the victim F, No. 1 during the six-day period of medical treatment, and the victim H, respectively, for approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

2. The instant facts charged constitute a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

According to the records, the victims may recognize the fact that they submitted a written agreement stating their intention not to punish the defendant around January 16, 2018, which was after the prosecution of this case.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow