logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.06.19 2013고정2806
도로교통법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a minor fine of twenty thousand won.

Where the defendant does not pay the above minor fine, 10,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is going to proceed at an insular speed along the three-lanes in the direction of the calendar distance in the direction of the calendar distance.

In such cases, when following the vehicle behind the front in the same direction, all drivers have the duty of care to ensure that the vehicle ahead stops suddenly, by securing a distance necessary to avoid conjection with the vehicle ahead, and to prevent the accident from being delayed.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to operate the vehicle in close vicinity by negligence, and found and stopped a vehicle in the D Eth Ethmp which was prior to the end of the vehicle in the right-hand apartment, and did not keep the necessary distance to avoid the collision with the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the Defendant, such as discovering the vehicle in front of the right-hand edge of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of CD image Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts of crime, the choice of punishment, and Articles 156 subparagraph 1 and 19 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and the selection of minor fines;

1. According to each of the above evidence of the grounds for conviction of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, it is recognized that the defendant did not secure the safety distance with the vehicle ahead of it as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment, and it is deemed that C was stopped in order to avoid a collision with the vehicle ahead of it, and it cannot be deemed that C intentionally stopped the defendant. In addition, it cannot be deemed that the control police officer attempted to harm the defendant, and the police officer erroneously stated the four-lane of the first traffic accident as three-lane at the time of preparing the first

Even if such circumstance does not interfere with the above recognition.

arrow