beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person driving a DNS car in the name of C.
On 20:00 on 07. 08. 20:00, the Defendant driven the upper vehicle, and driven the front road of the GPPP station in the Suwon-dong of Gwangju Mine-gu, with two lanes, driving the front road of the GPP station in the Suwon-gu, Gwangju in the direction of the new Changdong in the Suwon-dong.
It is a road where there is a large volume of traffic and a tea line are installed.
In such cases, when a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle intends to change his/her lane, he/she shall not change his/her course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of all motor vehicles running in the direction of the change, and he/she has a duty of care to safely change his/her direction light in advance to prevent accidents in advance.
Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and changes the lane as it is.
The F K5-business taxi driven by E (E, South, and fifty-three years of age) in the same direction was making a sudden stop in order to avoid collision.
Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim G (the age of 33) who was on the back seat of the E-driving vehicle due to the foregoing occupational negligence to suffer injury, such as a string of a shoulder that requires treatment for about two weeks.
Summary of Evidence
1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;
1. On-site photographs, comprehensive operation details, and precision analysis of speed of the traffic accident;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;
1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;
1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Defendant has fulfilled his/her duty of care to observe when changing the lane, and that the Defendant did not recognize that the Defendant was due to the Defendant’s act. However, according to each of the statements made by taxi engineers E and victims G, the Defendant has the duty of care to observe when changing the lane.