logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.07.14 2017고단1442
도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 17, 2017, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (if the Defendant was under the influence of 0.171% of alcohol during blood transfusions on April 17, 2017, the Defendant driving a B-low-scale car with a alcohol concentration of 0.171%, and led the two-lane road, which is one-lane off from the wall surface of the front side of the wall, in order to ensure that the two-lane road was under the influence of 0.171% of alcohol level in the blood transfusions.

Since there is a place where the center line of yellow solid lines is installed, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to see the front line and to safely operate the car line.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so under the influence of alcohol and went on the opposite direction by neglecting the center line.

C(50) Driving 50 Do 50 Do 50 Do 103 Do 102 Do 102 Do 102 Do 14

Ultimately, the Defendant, by occupational negligence, destroyed approximately KRW 582,377 of the repair cost to the vehicle of C driving with approximately KRW 582,377 of the repair cost and escaped without taking necessary measures.

2. The Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the death or injury before and after danger) continued to proceed after causing an accident, such as Paragraph 1, at the same time and place as Paragraph 1, and continued to proceed within a three-distance radius. Since there was a three-distance signal, there was a duty of care to safely drive on the left, right, and signal.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, neglected to stop in the air and caused the breath part of the Victim E(59) drive, followed by the FM vehicle of the victim E(59) driving, and caused the said MM vehicle to shock the part behind the victim G(46 years) driving in the front of the breath.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s occupational negligence inflicted injury on the victim E such as salt, tensions, etc. in need of approximately two weeks of medical treatment, and damage to the climatic typology that requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment to the victim G.

arrow