logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.06.29 2016고정1706
도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who drives a fluoral fluoral fluoral fluort 124cc.

1. On February 4, 2016, the Defendant driven a 08:52-round the above 08:52-round, and driven a four-lane road in front of the Busan High-gu Busan High-dong Office Office Office Officetel with four-lanes from the intersection to the intersection of the tri line from the intersection in writing.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle shall accurately operate the steering system, brakes, and other devices of the motor vehicle, shall not drive the motor vehicle at a speed or in such a manner as to inflict any danger and injury on others according to the traffic conditions of the road and the structure and performance of the motor vehicle, and has the duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by reporting the traffic situation well and safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded with the same lane when he was neglected, and the victim B (the 53-year-old) who driven by the Defendant was driving ahead of the same lane, was rapidly stopped in order to avoid collisions with the right side of the damaged vehicle to enter the parking lot, but the Defendant failed to avoid the collisions, and the part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s driver’s car was completely left ahead of the right side of the damaged vehicle.

The Defendant, by negligence in the above occupational negligence, destroyed the property, such as the repair cost of KRW 1,467,546,00,000, which is worth KRW 1,467,546, and the Defendant left the vehicle without any measures, even though it immediately stopped and confirmed the existence of the damage.

2. The Defendant, who did not mandatory insurance, operated the above urbine on the road, which was not covered by mandatory insurance at the same time and place as that of the preceding paragraph.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of mandatory insurance-related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as inquiries and photographs and estimates related to traffic accidents;

1. Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 148 and 54 of the same Act concerning facts constituting a crime;

arrow