logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2014.02.25 2013고단646
도로교통법위반등
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 two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant is a driver of a Dap car in violation of the Road Traffic Act, the Road Traffic Act (unauthorized Measures after Accidents) and the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving).

On 26, 2013. 21:06, the Defendant driven the above vehicle without the driver's license, and led to the progress of the road near the Mapo-ri-si located in the Mapo-si located in the Mapo-si located in the Mapo-si located in the Mapo-si.

Since there was a central separation cost in the center of the above road, the defendant engaged in driving of the motor vehicle had a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle without shocking the central separation zone, etc. by accurately operating the steering gear and steering gear.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and was negligent in proceeding the above vehicle and received the central separation zone on the left side of the above vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant, even though he damages the above central separation zone to the repair cost of KRW 1,314,596, left away without stopping and taking necessary measures.

2. The Defendant, who forged a private document or forged a private document, was physically injured by the foregoing accident.

When a defendant receives medical treatment in his/her own name, he/she could be aware of the fact of the above accident.

Accordingly, the defendant had been able to receive medical treatment using his personal information, which is the birthee C.

On June 2, 2013, the Defendant consented to the alcohol of itself at D Hospital, and entered the above C name in the surgery explanation and written consent that waives the damage claim, etc. arising from the operation process.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged the operation explanation and one copy of the written consent, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

The Defendant continued to use the forged documents as above to an employee under the name of D Hospital who is unaware of the circumstances.

3. Violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

arrow