logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.10.17 2013고단4884
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant charged with the instant case is a person engaging in driving a small- or medium-type taxi.

On January 22, 2013, around 22:20, the Defendant proceeded three-lane roads in front of the Mang-si, Daegu-dong-gu, Daegu-gu, in the speed of 50-60km at a speed of 50 km per hour, depending on two-lanes from the boundary of the Dong-dong-gu to the boundary of the new neons distance.

At the time, there were many commercial buildings in and around the night, and therefore, there were duty of care to confirm whether there is a person engaging in driving of a motor vehicle to reduce speed and to see well the right and the right and the right and the right of the motor vehicle, and to accurately manipulate the steering and the operation of the steering system to prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not find out the victim D (53 years old) who was unclaimed on the right side from the left side of the running direction of the above vehicle operated by the defendant due to negligence while neglecting this, and had the victim go beyond the upper part of the defendant's taxi.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from a serious injury by occupational negligence, such as blood transfusion under the level of acute depression, which requires at least 12 weeks of medical treatment.

2. The judgment is a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, which cannot be discussed against the victim’s express intent under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the written agreement submitted by the defendant on October 8, 2013, it is recognized that the victim does not want to punish the defendant any longer after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag.

arrow