logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.04.21 2015고정843
도로교통법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On October 20, 2014, at around 07:54, the Defendant: (a) driven a car in CSpo-type C in the direction of the airport in Yangcheon-gu Seoul; (b) opened the IC in front of 106, along the direction of the IC, along the 4-lane in which a straight-line and a straight-line sign of a right-of-way surface is installed in the direction of the ebbbbbbb from the side of the side of the ebbbs of the ebs in the direction of the ebspon; and (c) even though the vehicles running along the ebsp-lane in the direction of the airport in the direction of the ebsp-lane in order to prevent the danger of the vehicle due to the vehicle’s body, the Defendant moved in the other vehicle in the direction of the ebsp-way in the direction of the ebsp-way

2. Articles 23 and 22 (2) 3 of the Road Traffic Act provide that all drivers of vehicles shall not change in the future that stops or stops in order to prevent danger. Here, the phrase “vehicles that stops or stops in order to prevent danger” refers to the vehicles that stop or stops in order to avoid any danger that has occurred or is likely to occur on the road as a matter of the interpretation of the legal language and text, and any vehicle driven slowly due to the body of the vehicle shall not be deemed a vehicle that stops or stops in order to prevent danger.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had been engaged in the vehicle to prevent the danger.

There is no evidence that there is no evidence to determine the person.

In addition, according to the fact-finding reply to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Police Agency Commissioner General of the National Police Agency on October 20, 2014, there was no safety signs prohibiting the change of course between the three-lanes of the instant road and the three-lanes on October 20, 2014, and thus, the Defendant’s act violated the prohibition of change of course under the Road Traffic Act.

3. Thus, the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable to the case where there is no proof of criminal facts.

arrow