logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.12.10 2015고정1197
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a DNA-type vehicle.

On March 7, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on March 7, 2017:50, and driven a two-lane road in the Banananeeung-gu Highway, Dananegsan, Namnam-gu, Gwangju, at a speed of about 100km/h of speed, depending on one-lane toward the breadth from Gwangju to the west.

The Defendant, by occupational negligence, who did not properly see the front side and did not accurately operate the steering direction and operation devices, found the Fwing and operation vehicle driven by the victim E (year 36) in the same direction at the front side of the same direction at a late time, and avoided shock, the Defendant moved the front line to a two-lane to drive the said front line. In order to avoid shocking, the vehicle at the center of the motor vehicle is moving back again to a one-lane, while taking the front side of the victim's right side of the motor vehicle into the front side of the motor vehicle at the center of the motor vehicle, suffered injury, such as an unknown brain death, etc., for about two weeks, and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as immediately stopping the vehicle and aiding the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Written estimate;

1. Evidence and photographs of the traffic accident;

1. The reference inquiry report;

1. Application of CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning the punishment for a crime;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of a workhouse

1. The main point of the argument was that the Defendant, in order to avoid the collision between the damaged vehicle and the tunnel wall in a tunnel, was rapidly changed the course into a two-lane, and that was again changed into a one-lane course, but the conflict was insignificant at the time. As such, the vehicle scambling the vehicle due to the rapid change in the course as above, the Defendant suffered the vehicle.

arrow