logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.10.18 2016고단2182
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and a fine of three hundred thousand won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 31, 2014, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 4 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Daegu District Court, and on July 17, 2015, a summary order of KRW 7 million for the same crime, etc. at the same court.

【Criminal Facts】

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of BEAV 125 Oral Ba, the violation of the Road Traffic Act, the Road Traffic Act (free license) and the Defendant.

On May 7, 2016, the Defendant, without obtaining a motorcycle driver’s license at around 0:45 on May 7, 2016, driving the otob in the state of alcohol 0.202% of the blood alcohol concentration, led the Defendant to drive the otobb in front of the DNA restaurant C located in Daegu North-gu, Daegu, along the first line among four-lanes, along the liberTol Hospital.

At the time of night, a person engaged in driving service is prohibited from driving under the influence of alcohol, and there was a duty of care to drive safely by checking the right and the right and the right well.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and found out the Funched car of the Victim E (M, 34 years old) driving, which was parked in the signal atmosphere due to the negligence of being driven by the Defendant, late later, and, as the Defendant was unable to avoid this, received the part on the right side of the Defendant’s Hatoa car left side of the said Hatoa car.

Ultimately, the Defendant damaged the said rocketing car to the extent of KRW 430,100 in repairing cost, such as the exchange of back-winger vehicles by occupational negligence as above.

2. Although the holder of OE in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act was prohibited from operating OEAV which was not covered by mandatory insurance, the Defendant operated BEAV 125 OE which was owned by the Defendant, at the time and place indicated in the foregoing 1. Paragraph (1).

"2016 Highest 2663"

1. On May 30, 2016, the Defendant for larceny.

arrow