logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.08.17 2016노4227
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant accident was caused by the negligence of the victim who driven a vehicle in an excessive speed beyond the speed of restriction, not by the negligence of the defendant who did not temporarily stop in red on-and-off signal, etc.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provides that “A vehicle or horse at the time of on and off the red light with a stop line or crosswalk may stop immediately before or after the intersection, if any, in the event of a stop line or crosswalk, and proceed with another traffic at the same time.” Thus, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below are as follows: (i) the defendant did not temporarily stop the vehicle at the intersection beyond the temporary stop line and the crosswalk, even if the red on-off signal, etc. was in front, and continued without a speed reduction; (ii) the defendant and the victim D-driving vehicle image was conducted without a speed reduction; (iii) according to the video of the black box of the defendant and the victim D-driving vehicle, at least it appears that the defendant could have sufficiently discovered the victim D's vehicle directly from the right time when the defendant entered the intersection, and therefore, it would have been possible to examine whether the defendant would have avoided the accident in this case after temporarily stopping the vehicle immediately before the intersection.

In light of the fact that the defendant was negligent in performing his duty of care to safely proceed with another traffic after temporarily suspending the crossing immediately before the intersection, and thereby resulting in injury to the victims, the defendant can be fully convicted of the charges of this case.

On the other hand, although the victim D has been at a speed exceeding 20 km, the traffic accident is not caused by the fault of the defendant.

arrow