logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2019.09.26 2019고단1919
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Around 09:50 on December 15, 2018, the Defendant driven a B D dump truck and proceeded into a luminous air defense area on the surface of the D bank in light of the B bank in light of the summary of the facts charged, and the Defendant, through thorough operation of the front city, failed to perform his/her duty of care to prevent accidents, and did not discover the victim E crossing the road to the right-hand side from the progress direction at the time when he/she was negligent and did not discover the victim E who was going to the right-hand side of the road and received the victim as a truck, and incurred injury, such as the removal of the body of the dump, which requires treatment for about 16 weeks.

2. Determination

(a) A person who drives a motor vehicle in a children protection zone shall be responsible for an accident if he/she has caused an accident by neglecting his/her duty of care in a manner that makes it possible for him/her to operate his/her motor vehicle at any time by complying with the speed limit in consideration of the characteristics of his/her behavior that is difficult to forecast, thoroughly giving rise to the

Of course, even if various measures have been taken in this case, but if the accident occurred in the situation where it is difficult to predict and avoid the accident, the accident cannot be held liable only for the shock of children in the child protection zone.

B. In the instant case, ① appears to have been complying with the speed limit, ② it is extremely difficult to anticipate the entry of people on the side of the first line, rather than the delivery outside the third line, on the side of round-down six lanes; ③ it was difficult to find up even immediately before the victim entered the third line as he was found to be a third line since the vehicle was stopped on the side of the first and the second lanes; and ③ it was difficult for the victim to find up the vehicle up to the third line. Although the Defendant’s vehicle boom image shows that people who look at the family members of the victim before the accident, the form of the victim is well good.

arrow