logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2014.11.18 2014고단51
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 12, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2.5 million from the Chuncheon District Court due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On December 7, 2010, the Defendant is a person who had the record of receiving a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from the same court due to the same crime, etc., and is engaged in driving Cschton cars.

On December 22, 2013, at around 01:58, the Defendant driven the said car with a alcohol concentration of 0.197% 0.197%, and continued to drive the said car with a road of the E-Marate in Chuncheon City D with a view to the modern apartment room as a common knowledge from the Dorogate.

Since there is a center line of yellow-ray, in such a case, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle in a safe manner by thoroughly operating the steering gate and the steering gear accurately.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to drive under the influence of alcohol and parked in the opposite lane due to the negligent negligence of the center line, and led the victim F, who was in the opposite lane, to be the front part of the vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the victim’s vehicle in front of the passenger in front of the passenger in front of the passenger in front of the passenger in front of the passenger in front of the passenger in front of the passenger in front of the Defendant, which is owned by the victim in front of the vehicle in front of the latter, and due to the shock of the vehicle in front of the victim in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the latter, the victim in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the victim in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the latter.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the Defendant’s occupational negligence on the part of the Defendant’s Defendant’s Mane-kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s k

arrow