logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.09.09 2020고단2972
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 6 million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 4 million won.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is a person engaged in the business of driving C concrete mixtures trucks.

around 15:50 on December 30, 2019, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on the front of Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and proceeded to F from the direction of E.

At this point, it is a place designated as a children protection zone, and in such cases, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has the duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle while paying attention to the safety of children, such as checking 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 of operation

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and proceeded with the victim G (8 years old) who was crossing the crosswalk in the child protection zone from the right side of the proceeding direction to the right side of the vehicle.

The Defendant by negligence caused the victim to suffer injury, such as an open wound, which requires approximately 10 weeks of medical treatment.

2. Defendant B is the representative of H, and is the driver of I school bus for children.

The defendant was forced to leave the above victim in the school bus for children at the time and place mentioned in paragraph (1).

It is a place designated as a children protection zone, a road with a crosswalk, and in such case, a driver of a school bus has a duty of care to safely get on and off children or infants when children or infants board or alight from the school bus, and to operate the school bus with a guardian in operation of the school bus. When children or infants board or alight from the school bus, they have a duty of care to safely get on and off children or infants.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and operated the confirmation device for children's low-income.

arrow