logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.08.18 2017노400
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal and the person who was the defendant and the person with the same rank did not feel all the fact that the vehicle driven by the defendant was the back of the victim; according to the appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, the victim's personal salvance is not identified; and the credibility of the victim's statement cannot be acknowledged; in light of the fact that the defendant's vehicle did not have any excessive influence on the victim's growth; even if so, there was such a fact.

Even in light of the fact that the victim actually suffered injury and whether the injury was caused by the accident in this case, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to deny the credibility of the above victim’s statement on the ground that the victim’s statement and witness present at the scene consistent with the facts charged were consistent and that there was no special circumstance to make a false statement, and that the degree of shock in the instant case is low, even though the Defendant could not be aware of the fact that the wheels of the driver’s vehicle was overfinite with the victim’s growth, etc., even though the Defendant could not be aware of the shock fact, the Defendant and his female relative group on the vehicle did not know the shock fact, and that the victim offered a proposal to replace the driver for insurance processing, etc., on the ground that it is difficult to deny the credibility of the victim’s statement.

B. According to the judgment of this court, the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant neglected his duty of care as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and caused the victim to suffer approximately two weeks of medical treatment by focusing on the victim's right edge with the front wheels of the passenger car driven by the defendant due to negligence.

arrow