(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2014.08.28 2013고단3061

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) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2014.08.28 2013고단3061

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등

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

Criminal facts

On November 4, 2013, at around 08:10, the Defendant was driving a cargo vehicle of 14.5 tons, C, C, 14.5 tons, and was driving on the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the D, Hanam-si, into the petrogate.

In this case, the defendant who is engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle in a safe manner by accurately manipulating the steering direction and brake system of the motor vehicle while living well before and after the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and did not look well at the front and rear left, and left the scene without taking necessary measures at the time of the occurrence of a traffic accident by immediately stopping the vehicle of the victim while working in the middle of the two-lane, with the left side side of the FNzet car of the victim E-motor vehicle of the victim who was signaled in three-lanes at the time, which is the right corner of the defendant's loading box of the cargo vehicle of the victim, which is thereby damaging the victim's vehicle of KRW 2,328,608.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. Accident-related photographs, blackbox images, CDs;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel in a written estimate

1. The summary of the argument asserts that the defendant and his defense counsel did not have any criminal intent to escape, since the defendant did not recognize at all the occurrence of the traffic accident, although there was a fact that the traffic accident was paid at the time and at the location of the decision by the defendant.

2. However, according to the aforementioned evidence: (a) according to the abnormal progress pattern, that is, the Defendant’s image shown in the course of the damaged vehicle’s degree of damage, scambling, and the Defendant’s cargo cambling, the Defendant’s cargo camblinged in the process of flapsing the victim’s car while driving at a certain speed, while driving the victim’s car at a certain speed.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2013.11.14 2013고정1402

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.21 2019고정2229

-부산지방법원 2013.06.26 2013고단1567

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2019.09.24 2019고단499

-수원지방법원 2019.05.15 2018노8321