logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.12.16 2015고정1840
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
Text

1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won;

2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person driving a k5 vehicle in Korea.

On September 23, 2015, the Defendant driving the said car at around 23:00, and proceeded at the speed of 21-gil 23, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Hannam-gu, Seoul, at the Embassy to the direction of Hannam-dong Branch.

Since there are many places where a restaurant is concentrated and there is no distinction between a roadway and a delivery, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by driving safely, such as making it possible for the driver of the vehicle to see whether there is a pedestrian or not, and accurately operating the steering gear and the steering system of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and did not look at the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and did not go in the same direction at the front side of the Defendant’s running lane, and the left side of the victim E (ma, 32 years of age) and her son was placed in the same direction at the front side of the Defendant’s driving car.

The Defendant, by occupational negligence, sustained injury to salt, tension, etc. in need of treatment for about two weeks, but failed to immediately stop and take measures, such as providing relief to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Partial statements of each police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. The Defendant alleged to the effect that he was aware of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident at all when the Defendant came to this court, and that he was aware of the fact that the instant traffic accident occurred by the police officer, thereby denying the criminal intent. As such, each of the above evidence was integrated, and the Defendant was the enemy who recognized most of the facts constituting the crime in the police. In particular, the Defendant committed the crime.

arrow