logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.05.03 2017노3418
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치상)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the background leading up to the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, etc., the Defendant misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine that the victimized person suffered the injury due to the said traffic accident alone.

In the absence of evidence to prove otherwise, the injured person suffered injury due to the above traffic accident, unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.

In light of the facts charged in this case, the court below found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury resulting from Dangerous Driving) and erred by misapprehending the legal principles

The argument is asserted.

B. The Defendant asserts that the punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too large and unfair.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant in this part of the facts charged is a person who is engaged in driving a B-A-to-purd passenger vehicle.

On July 14, 2017, the Defendant driven the said car under the influence of alcohol content 0.218% during blood transfusion 0.22:00, and driven the said car at a speed of about 10 K km per hour at the speed of about 10 km from the side of each light village in the southyang-si.

At that time, the Defendant was driving a victim D (V, 43 years of age) who was stopped for the left-hand signal waiting before the same direction.

Since the vehicle was stopped after the EM3 passenger cars, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by thoroughly manipulating the direction, brakes, etc. after checking the driving of the vehicle with thorough view to the situation of the vehicle, and then accurately manipulating the direction, brakes, etc. to prevent accidents.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not confirm the departure of the above SM3 passenger vehicles due to negligence while neglecting the duty to stop on the front day while driving the above vehicle while it is difficult to drive the vehicle normally due to drinking.

arrow