logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2015.10.08 2015고단1230
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving motor vehicles at C low-speed.

On 18:20 on 02. 03. 18:20 on 18:20, the Defendant driven the above car, and driven the same three-lanes from the original elementary school located in the Dong-gu, Seonam-gu, Seonam-si.

Since it is a child protection zone, the defendant engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle with due care in consideration of the conditions of the road, taking into account the right and the left and right of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, while the Defendant was negligent in driving a vehicle on a full basis, the Defendant received the victim D (eight years of age) who crosses the road to port from the right side of the said vehicle as the front part of the said vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim’s injury by occupational negligence, such as light dynasium, in which the number of days of treatment cannot be known.

2. According to the evidence submitted, including the black picture image of the vehicle driven by the Defendant, the traffic accident in this case is three-lane roads at a speed of 60 km per hour in the children protection zone. The date and time of the occurrence of the accident is about 18:20 on October 13, 2015, the vehicle driven on the road at a speed of 60 km per hour in the children protection zone. The vehicle driven on the road at a speed of 18:20 on October 18, 2015, showed its headlights, and was difficult to bring about the road at a speed of 53.6 km at that time. At that time, the Defendant was driving along the one-lane road at a speed of about 53.6 km, and the passenger was driving on the right side of the Defendant’s proceeding. The victim was found to have been driving on the crosswalk installed in the above road without permission from the Defendant’s right side, and the Defendant violated the safety limit of the children in this case or discovered the victim immediately before the accident.

arrow