logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.29 2019고정1868
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in the operation of Bsch Rexton sports combineds.

Around 15:53 on May 21, 2019, the Defendant driven the above van, and led the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul to make a U-turn at a speed that cannot be seen as an active duty-free area from the main red school.

There is a place where a yellow solid line is installed, and there was a duty of care to make a internship only at the place where a motor vehicle driver is able to do so, not with the center line, but with the center line.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the driver’s license for the victim D (the 48-year-old driver’s license) driving on the Madle part, which was placed in the Madle part, to avoid the collision of the Defendant and to go beyond the road, by overcoming the center line of the yellow cell line at a place where the U-turn is not allowed.

Ultimately, even though the Defendant suffered from an injury to the life of a light that requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment due to occupational negligence, the Defendant immediately stopped and escaped without taking measures such as aiding the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the defendant;

1. Statements made by witnesses D in the fourth trial records;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. CCTV video CDs;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's vehicle did not shock the victim's driver's misperion, the victim's own use of the balance of Otoba, and the victim's wife suffered bodily injury under the Criminal Act because it cannot be said that the victim suffered bodily injury because it was insignificant. Thus, the defendant's medical certificate and the defense counsel did not constitute a crime.

Even though the defendant's act does not cause the result of the victim's thought or directly cause the victim's thought, it is combined with other indirect causes generated from this, thereby causing the result of the victim's thought.

arrow