(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.11.17 2016고정2214

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.11.17 2016고정2214

도로교통법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the driver of the Dokdo vehicle.

On March 8, 2016, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on March 14:3, 2016, while driving the vehicle in the direction of the three-distance prior to discharge from active service from the side of the exhibition center located in the area of the Busan-gu Busan-dong. In such a case, the driver of the vehicle driven the vehicle without wearing the safety belt while driving the vehicle before departure.

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Inspector;

1. On-site photographs at the time of crackdown;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a penalty payment notice;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, subparagraph 6 of Article 156 and Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines for the punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts that he/she had worn and departed from the safety level.

However, C, a crackdown police officer, made a very specific and consistent statement about the first control manual from the point of view to this court, the background leading up to the detection of the defendant, the behavior of the defendant at the time of the detection, the response of the defendant after detection, etc. As such, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted in full view of the following: (a) the credibility of the statement is sufficient; (b) the person suspected of being exposed to a violation by a police officer; (c) the person suspected of being exposed to a safety bell is likely to have been in the body of the police officer; and (d) if the person is aware of the violation and led him to stop on the sideway, the defendant would have been in action at the time; (d) the police officer seems to have committed such act; and (e) there is no reason for the police officer to make a false regulation by specifying the defendant; and (e) there is no incentive to

참조조문

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.12.21 2016노4745

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.12.15 2016고단2221

-서울동부지방법원 2018.09.11 2018고정433

-춘천지방법원 2017.02.09 2016노528

-서울남부지방법원 2020.11.25 2018가단261722