logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.08.19 2019고정486
도로교통법위반등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving service of large ACE 110 OF.

On September 1, 2019, at around 0:29, the Defendant driven the above Otoba while under the influence of alcohol with 0.086% of blood alcohol concentration, and driven the front road B in the Hongjin-gu Seoul Metropolitan Area B along the three-lanes from the side of the Asia's Underground streets, and changed the lane into one lane.

Since there are two different vehicles running in one lane, if it is likely to obstruct normal traffic of other vehicles running in the direction of change to a person engaged in driving service, the course shall not be changed, and there was a duty of care to safely change the lanes and prevent accidents by giving prior notice of change in the course by operating the direction, etc. in advance, and by safely changing the lanes and preventing accidents.

Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant neglected it and changed the course to the left-hand side in the above road, and caused damage to the extent of repair cost of KRW 574,778 on the front side of the E-7 car driven by the victim D, who was driving by the Defendant along one-lane in the same direction, due to the negligence of changing the direction to the left-hand side in the above road.

2. On September 18:29, 2019, the Defendant driven the otobs described in paragraph (1) in the state of drunk alcohol concentration of about 0.086% from the 10km section from the front side of the F apartment in the Yansan-si, Jeonju to the place where the above accident occurred.

3. No person who holds a motor vehicle in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act shall operate any motor vehicle on a road which is not covered by mandatory insurance;

Nevertheless, the defendant operated approximately 10 km without registration under Paragraph 1, which was not covered by mandatory insurance at the time and place mentioned in Paragraph 2.

arrow