logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.04.27 2016고단4476
교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)
Text

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

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a C-A-hurd motor vehicle.

On November 3, 2016, the Defendant driven the above car at around 17:55, and continued to drive the said car at a speed of about 30 km per hour from the direction of the four-lane away from the direction of the Korean Peninsula of Daejeon, Daejeon to the direction of about 832 degrees in the middle-gu, Daejeon to the direction of the four-lane radius.

In such cases, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by safely driving a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle by checking the front side and the left side.

Nevertheless, if the defendant neglected to do so and proceeds by negligence, the defendant did not discover the victim D (the age of 87) who crosss the above road without the closed crosswalk to the right side from the left side of the running direction of the defendant and did not find the victim D (the age of 87) and was driven by the defendant, the head part of the victim's head was placed in front of the front left side of the motor vehicle of the front left side and glass window of the motor vehicle of the defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victim of the same day on the same day by negligence in the course of business as above, to the hospital of the Chungcheongnam-nam University.

[Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel] The defendant recognized the fact that the victim of this case died from a vehicle driven by the defendant, but asserts that the occurrence of the traffic accident of this case is an exceptional traffic accident which is difficult to anticipate normally and is therefore not negligent in the course of business.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court (in particular, the black video CD), the center of the road in which the instant traffic accident occurred does not have a central separation cost. The location where the instant traffic accident occurred was the bus stop, the point at which the instant traffic accident occurred was the bus stop, the point at which the instant traffic accident occurred was the shuttle time, the location at which the instant traffic accident occurred was the urban single-lap, and the location at which the instant traffic accident occurred was not designated as the urban single-lap, and the road immediately before the occurrence of the instant traffic accident.

arrow