logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.08 2018고정1903
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person driving a vehicle with a body as D.

The Defendant, around 16:31 on June 10, 2018, driven the above vehicle on the front road of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and proceeded one lane between five lanes in the direction of Posco distance on the side of Samsung Station. Since a place has a central chemical group, the Defendant has a duty of care to take the front and drive the vehicle safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and, instead, conflict with the part of the Defendant’s driver’s seat in front of the Defendant’s driver’s seat in G Nana car driving by the victim F (75 Doe) who is driving one lane from the center line (the center line and the center line) in one direction.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as “brain sugar, salvine, salvine, salvine, and salvine,” which requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment due to occupational negligence as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Fact-finding survey report and report on the occurrence of any traffic accident;

1. Blucs video CDs in black boxes;

1. An accident scene photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes (F);

1. Article 3(1) and the proviso to Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to the relevant Act and the Special Cases concerning the Selection of Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the instant accident caused by sudden breakdown of a vehicle, which inevitably exceeds the central line to avoid an accident, and thus does not constitute “in cases where the central line is invaded” under Article 3(2) proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

2. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the defendant, while proceeding one-lane of the five-lanes, will be the centralization.

arrow