logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.04.20 2016고단2720
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is engaged in driving of CM3 automobiles.

On July 8, 2016, the Defendant continued the intersection of the private distance in front of the middle power of the Southern East-dong of Asan City at around 13:20 on July 8, 2016, toward the restaurant for the epidemian article.

Since there is a place where traffic control takes place, in such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to drive in checking whether there is a cross-section by reducing speed or temporarily stopping.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded to the right side of the running direction of the victim D ( South, 66 years old) driving without registration engine device, and the front side of the bicycle was received as the front side of the Defendant’s driving car.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as kneee, knee, bones, etc., which requires about 16 weeks of treatment due to such occupational negligence.

2. The prosecutor asserts in the facts charged that the injured person’s injury constitutes “a case where the injured person is at risk of life due to the bodily injury of the injured person or a case where the injured person is at risk of life or where the incurable or incurable disease occurs.”

However, there is no evidence to prove that the injury suffered by the victim among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor constitutes "the injury of the victim caused by the bodily injury to his/her life or the injury caused by the incurable or incurable disease."

Rather, the report on the results of the police investigation and the written opinion are considered not to fall under the injury of the victim caused by the alley.

At the hospital, this victim is stated to be "I knee-free only when there is no problem in daily life," and on September 22, 2016, the prosecutor sought opinions from the victim's attention as to whether the victim's bodily injury constitutes a kne-free and unfel-free injury.

arrow