logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.05.03 2013고정39
교통사고처리특례법위반등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a license plate 49cc.

1. On September 22, 2012, the Defendant violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) and the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “Road Traffic Act”) driven the above motorcycle without obtaining a motorcycle driver’s license on September 22, 2012, and the Seongbuk-gu Seoul shall drive the above motorcycle and drive the three lanes in front of 114-2 by using the three lanes in front of the 114-2 U.S. in the shooting distance of the Sl

At all times, there are an intersection and crosswalk in which signal control by signal apparatus is conducted, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to reduce the speed to those engaged in driving of the motor vehicle and to prevent accidents in advance by safely driving the motor vehicle in accordance with signals.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded as it was by negligence, disregarding that the vehicle driving signal is changed to the stop signal, and received the front part of the victim C 110cc motor bicycle driving C 110cc motor vehicles crossing the crosswalk from the right side of the crosswalk to the left side in accordance with the pedestrian signals.

As a result, the Defendant caused the victim to suffer from the heat of ice excavation requiring approximately two weeks of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence, and at the same time damaged the above 110C motorcycle to have approximately KRW 1,638,750 of repair cost.

2. The Defendant violating the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is the owner of the above 49c motorcycle.

Although the Defendant was prohibited from operating a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance on the road, the Defendant operated the said motor vehicle, which was not covered by the mandatory insurance for temporary warning as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning B;

1. Investigation report (Analysis of accident images);

1. A traffic accident;

arrow