logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2013.12.27 2013고단2694
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that 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. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicles) and the Road Traffic Act (Non-accidenting Measures) are those engaged in driving a CEX car.

On March 25, 2013, the defendant operated the above car at around 17:40 on March 25, 2013, and applied to the left of grain in the direction of strengthening the distance of grain processing company at both sides of Kimpo-si.

Since there is an intersection where signal lights are installed, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle by checking well the front door according to the signals.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to turn to the left in violation of the signal and brought it to the left at the level of reinforcement in the Incheon room, and shocked into the right side side of the EXE car, the upper right side of the EXE car, and shocked into the upper side of the EXE car. Accordingly, the EXE's G driving of the victim, which the above EXE car stops in the future due to its shock, was moved to the upper left side of the EXE car.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim D by the foregoing occupational negligence for about two weeks, and at the same time, the repair cost, such as the exchange of 1,435,265 won, such as the exchange of 1,435,265 won, destroyed the wing-in and three cargo vehicles owned by the victim D, and the repair cost of KRW 2,219,345 was reduced to the extent that the 2,219,345 won was damaged, and the Defendant escaped without taking necessary measures, such as aiding the victim by stopping the vehicle immediately.

2. No person who violates the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act shall operate any motor vehicle on a road which is not covered by mandatory insurance;

Nevertheless, the Defendant operated CEX car which is not covered by mandatory insurance at the time and place specified in Paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the fifth court date);

1.The witness D and F, respectively.

arrow