logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2013.08.30 2013노139
상해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not intentionally cause the instant accident, while recognizing that the instant accident could have occurred, there was no fact that he was overtaking the victim F’s vehicle (hereinafter “victim”) with the recognition of the occurrence of the instant accident, and there was no intention to injure or damage property by passing the victim F’s vehicle (hereinafter “victim”). On the other hand, after passing the damaged vehicle, it was urgent to reduce the chief documents of the steering officer, and the Defendant did not have intention to injure or destroy property

B. In light of the overall conditions of sentencing sentencing, the sentence of the lower court (fine 5,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The judgment of the court below 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts reveals the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: (i) the defendant is aware that the damaged vehicle was overtaken by the defendant's vehicle after a warning, and then passed the damaged vehicle again with the opposite vehicle going beyond the central line in order to overtake the vehicle; and (ii) it is not easy to understand that the damaged vehicle was entering the damaged vehicle without sufficient distance in the future, and that the damaged vehicle was proceeding behind the damaged vehicle; (ii) if the damaged vehicle as stated in the defendant's statement shows that the damaged vehicle was at a higher speed so that the defendant would not overtake the damaged vehicle, and (iii) even after the accident, the defendant did not have any intention to change the damaged vehicle with the second vehicle, but did not have any intention to change the damaged vehicle with the second vehicle after the accident, and (iv) even after the accident occurred, it was found that the defendant stopped or stopped the damaged vehicle by negligence while taking account of the fact that the damaged vehicle was at a higher speed.

arrow