(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.11.02 2017노2073 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.11.02 2017노2073

교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the 2-year suspended sentence, the observation of protection, and the 40-hour course of compliance driving in the 10-month imprisonment) is too unfford and unfair.

2. Despite the fact that the Defendant had already been punished twice due to driving without a license and twice a license, he/she caused a traffic accident by breaking the central line while driving without a license despite the fact that he/she had already been punished twice due to driving without a license, which led to the occurrence of a traffic accident by breaking the central line. As a result, the Defendant did not receive a letter from the injured party even if he/she was putting the 14 week heavy attention for the victim, and the degree of criticism is relatively high in

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant committed a crime; (b) the Defendant committed a crime; (c) the Defendant did not repeat the crime while disposing of the vehicle used for the crime; (d) the Defendant did not have any record of punishment in addition to fines for the same kind of crime; (c) the Defendant deposited KRW 5 million for the victim; and (d) the Defendant made efforts to recover damage by performing the obligation of indemnity against the insurance company on the part of the victim; and (e) other conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, occupation, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That in the application of the law of the court below, the “the injury or injury caused by negligence in the course of business” under the provision of “the pertinent provision of the law concerning criminal facts” is obvious that it is a clerical error of “the injury or injury caused by negligence in the course of

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.10.12 2017노1570

-대구지방법원 2017.08.31 2017노2742

-대구지방법원 2017.09.07 2017노1275

-대구지방법원 2017.11.16 2017노2947

-대구지방법원 2018.01.18 2017노4850