logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.10.19 2018고정845
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

On March 13, 2018, the Defendant: (a) driven an occupational D S450 car on the road in front of C, Seoul, Daejeon, Daejeon, on March 13, 2018; and (b) driven by a d S450 car, along one-lane from the upper and lower parallel distance, followed the center line of the yellow-ray without looking well at the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and duty are

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment from the victim due to the above occupational negligence.

However, the following circumstances recognized through the evidence duly adopted and examined at this court, i.e., the victim: (i) even though the victim was at a speed of about 85 km at a speed exceeding 60 km in speed, which is the speed of 85 km, the speed limit was neglected; (ii) the defendant was making a U-turn at the location where the yellow do so, but there was a white line that can be a U-turn at approximately 3 to 5 meters. In light of the above situation of the victim’s progress, it seems that the defendant was at a location where the U-turn could be available, and (iii) at the time, the defendant was making a U-turn pursuant to the new subparagraph near the intersection where the left-hand turn turn turn turn is possible (Evidence evidence records 60-64 pages, evidence records 16-18-18 of the evidence record should be kept in the direction of the victim’s photograph, etc.; and (iv) the defendant should have been equipped with the driver’s duty of care in advance to prevent collision with the victim’s photograph.

arrow