logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2012.12.21 2012노531
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the instant accident refers to the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the intersection first, and the damaged vehicle was caused by shocking the rear wheels of the Defendant’s vehicle; (b) the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been negligent by failing to perform his duty of care; and (c) the Defendant, after the instant accident, had the Defendant take necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting friendship with his mind, and the Defendant’s contact information was stated on the Defendant’s vehicle, so it cannot be said that the Defendant escaped without taking necessary measures, such as rescue, etc.; and (c) the injury suffered by the victim is extremely insignificant and minor.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges of this case guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 25(6) of the Road Traffic Act, when the driver of any motor vehicle intends to drive a motor vehicle into the intersection where a safety sign indicating a temporary suspension or concession is installed without traffic control, he/she shall temporarily stop or yield so as not to impede the passage of other motor vehicles. Therefore, any motor vehicle that is not under traffic control and intends to enter the intersection where a safety sign indicating a temporary suspension is installed is obliged to temporarily stop or yield so as not to impede the passage of other motor vehicles. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the driver of any motor vehicle has the duty of care to prevent any collision, etc. with other motor vehicles intending to drive the intersection in advance by temporarily stopping the motor vehicle, regardless

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3771 Decided July 12, 2007, etc.). Meanwhile, an escape vehicle driver provided for in Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”).

arrow