logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2014.11.27 2014고정433
교통사고처리특례법위반등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay a fine, 100,000 won shall be converted into one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a holder of the 1 Orala, who is a holder of the 1 Orala, and is engaged in the operation of the above Orala.

On May 14, 2014, at around 13:55, the Defendant driven the above Oral Ba, which was not covered by mandatory insurance, and proceeded with the intersection in front of the “C company” located in the Gunsan-si B from the Gunsan-si post office located in the Gunsan-si to the window of the Changsung apartment apartment, without properly examining the traffic situation at the Gun, and instead, by the negligence of entering the said e-M5 vehicle, the crosssection was driven by the victim D (n, 58 years old) who opened the e-M5 vehicle driving from the Samsung Life Guard to the scamb, the front part of the left side of the e-M5 vehicle driven by the victim D (n, 58 years old).

Ultimately, due to such occupational negligence, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as a light signboard disability accompanied by a nephal ppuri disease certificate, which requires approximately three weeks of treatment, and at the same time damaged the said M5 car to cover approximately KRW 796,438 of repair cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes regarding mandatory insurance;

1. Article 3 (1) of the relevant Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents; Article 268 of the Criminal Act; Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act; Article 46 (2) 2 and 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Reasons for Punishment] In this case, the defendant and the victim did not fulfill their duty of due care by temporarily suspending at the intersection, etc., and the degree of negligence is deemed equal in full view of evidence, such as a fact-finding report, etc.

For this reason, the defendant and the victim agreed not to ask the other party to compensate for the damage. Therefore, the defendant and the victim shall prepare Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. issued on July 15, 2014.

arrow