logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.04 2020고합198
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person engaged in driving a passenger car at Benz (hereinafter “the instant passenger car”).

On August 30, 2019, the Defendant driven the instant vehicle on August 17:39, and proceeding three-lanes among the seven-lane roads in front of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, in the direction of the Seocho-gu Seobane tunnel, and caused the victim D (Nam, 14 years old) (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) who illegally crosss the instant vehicle to the left-hand side from the right-hand side of the said vehicle due to negligence where the Defendant neglected his duty to check and drive the front left-hand side by well examining the front left-hand side in the direction of the Seobane tunnel.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by negligence in the above occupational negligence, stayed immediately and did not stop and take measures, such as providing relief to the victim, while suffering from the injury of the slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick sl

2. Summary of main arguments by the defendant and his defense counsel

A. The road in which the instant case occurred is installed at the boundary of India and roadways, along the 7-lane road and the 10-lane road. Since the point at which the instant accident occurred is located is located far away from the crosswalks, it cannot be easily anticipated for pedestrians to leave the crossings without permission. In addition, in light of the speed and progress of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, the location of the victim, and the existence of surrounding vehicles in the signal atmosphere, etc., the Defendant could not have predicted or avoided the instant accident.

Therefore, the defendant did not err by negligence in the course of business.

B. The Defendant was unable to properly see the victim, and immediately left the scene immediately after the occurrence of the accident, and could not clearly recognize the situation at the time or verify the necessity of relief measures.

The defendant had no intention to commit the crime of escape.

3...

arrow