logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017고단2838
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving service without registration.

On May 29, 2017, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.240% in blood at around 05:07, the Defendant was running from the current elementary school of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul at the front intersection of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the long distance outflow of old mountain.

In this case, there was a duty of care for those who are engaged in Ototoba driving, to live well on the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and duty of care to operate safely.

Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant, while driving on one side of the road along the right-hand turn by negligence in violation of the signal, led the victim G (V, 19 years old) who was on the back left-hand left-hand part of the road operated by D, who was in a straight line under the new code, to be driven by the driver of the Fone Star Corex vehicle owned by E, which was driven by the Defendant, in accordance with the new code, to fall off on the floor.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by occupational negligence, such as cutting the body body felbs on the left-hand side in need of approximately eight weeks medical treatment.

2. On the date and time set forth in paragraph 1, the Defendant driven the above otob in a section of about 100 meters from the flusium in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the front day of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.240% in blood.

3. The Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act: (a) operated the foregoing urbine, which was not covered by mandatory insurance, at the time and place specified in paragraph (2).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement of D and G;

1. A survey report on actual traffic accidents (1) (2);

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on driving alcohol;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (verification of CCTV for crime prevention);

1. Relevant legal provisions of the relevant criminal facts, Article 3(1)1 and 8 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to the Selection of Punishment, Article 3(2)1 and 8 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the point on duty and on duty).

arrow