logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.05.03 2013고정169
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On November 4, 2012, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant driven a Cmasaw car at around 18:10 on November 4, 2012, and proceeded at a speed of about 50 km in the speed of 50 km in the speed of Si/Gun/Gu along the three-lanes from the west-do Ne-do Neng-dong, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu at a speed of 4 lanes in front of the city-to-face. In such a case, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle is at night and at night, and at the same time, a person who is engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to check and drive the course by taking into account well the front left, while negligent in driving the motor vehicle and caused the death of the victim D (the 68 years old) who passed the road without permission on the right side of the defendant's direction by driving the motor vehicle on the front side of the road.

2. According to the records, the defendant's vehicle traffic is relatively frequent at night, and the driver of a vehicle is shocked by the victim who passed the road without permission while driving the road across an eight-lane road in the vicinity of the road by normal vehicle signal. In such a case, barring any special circumstance, the driver of a vehicle is sufficient if the pedestrian operates the vehicle in trust to cross the vehicle without crossing the roadway in compliance with the traffic-related laws and regulations, and there is no duty of care to take preventive measures by predicting pedestrians who are influent, and thus there is no duty of care to take preventive measures.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 84Do1572 delivered on September 10, 1985, and 2008Do8979 delivered on November 27, 2008, etc.). As to whether the Defendant neglected his duty of care in general and failed to discover the victim in advance due to his neglect of his duty of care, the following circumstances acknowledged according to the records, i.e., ① the Defendant was driving at a speed of 50km in the state of departure after stopping at the Negale-distance, but the restriction rate of the place was 70km.

arrow