logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2016.04.21 2016고단90
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person driving B rocketing car.

around 13:45 on December 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) driven the said car that was parked in front of the “D” road located in Kusi-si, Kusi-si; and (b) moved to the right side of the vehicle to drive the said car on the road to drive it into the sloping gate; and (c) turned to the road.

At the time, FCA10 Obama, FCA110, 110, a driver of a victim E (75) was proceeding to the scambia in the vicinity of the military line, and thus, in such a case, the driver of a motor vehicle had a duty of care to safely operate the steering system by making it possible for the driver of a motor vehicle to live well on the front side and the left side, and accurately operating the steering system.

However, the Defendant neglected to do so and caused the damage to the said vehicle due to the negligence of entering the said vehicle, which led the said vehicle to the front part of the said vehicle.

After all, the defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as double ducts that require approximately four weeks of treatment, and the complete loss of the left-hand hearing power caused by such occupational negligence.

2. The instant case is an offense falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted 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 records, on April 12, 2016, the victim, after instituting the instant prosecution, clearly expresses his/her intention not to have the defendant punished under the agreement with the defendant.

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

arrow