logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.05.03 2013고단1041
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The accused is a person engaged in the business of driving BM5 cars in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the Road Traffic Act, and the Road Traffic Act;

On January 9, 2013, the Defendant driven the said car under the influence of alcohol of 0.235% with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.235% around 18:00, and led the Defendant to drive the said car on a four-lane road in the upper Do road located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 747-3 at the upper Dondo-dong 747-3 at a two-lane as the upper ebspherical ebbbspons.

At the time, the Defendant found a DNA car driven by the victim C (year 42) who was parked in the same direction in accordance with the vehicle stop signal of the front distance. In such a case, the Defendant had a duty of care to maintain the safety distance and prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the defendant is changing the two lanes from the two lanes to the one.

In the same direction, the back part of the motor vehicle's right-hand part of the motor vehicle which was stopped at one-lane was driven by the defendant as the left-hand part of the motor vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by negligence in the course of business as above, sustained injury to the victim, such as salt of the bones of neck, which requires treatment for about two weeks, and at the same time, avoided damage to the repair cost of the franchising car, and escaped without taking measures such as aiding the victim, even though it did not immediately stop.

2. The Defendant is a holder of BM5 car in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Despite the fact that a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance is prohibited from operating on the road, the defendant operated the above SM5 motor vehicle without mandatory insurance at the date and place specified in Paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement; 1.1.

arrow