logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2019.06.13 2019고단144
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On June 10, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Daejeon District Court’s Support for Incheon District Court, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 8 million for the same crime by the same court on July 1, 2016.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Around December 21, 2018, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol at least 0.106% of blood alcohol concentration, driven a Fpoter II truck from the Do in front of a restaurant located in Asan City B to the front of a restaurant located in Asan City D in Asan City.

2. The defendant is engaged in driving the Fpoter Ⅱ cargo vehicles in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury).

On December 8, 2018, the Defendant driven the foregoing cargo vehicle under the influence of alcohol, as in the preceding paragraph of the preceding paragraph, and driven the two-lane road in the front of the Ecafeteria located in Asan City D at the speed of the U.S. at the U.S. distance in the Eup from the north-dong to the distance in the affairs of the Eup.

Since there is a road where the center line of yellow-ray is installed, there was a duty of care to prevent traffic accidents by complying with the car line and accurately operating the steering system and operating system for the driver of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and received the front part of the Defendant’s H QM5 car in front of the cargo vehicle in front of the Defendant’s cargo vehicle, which is in progress along the two-lanes facing the negligence of the central line by the negligence of the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s occupational negligence inflicted injury on the above victim, such as salt, tensions, etc., on the ground that the victim I (the passenger of QM5 car) was in need of approximately two weeks of treatment, and injury such as salt, tensions, and so on, for about two weeks of treatment to the victim I (the passenger of the above QM5 car). In need of approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim J (the Ha, Ha, Ha, nine years of age), injury such as chills, tensions, etc., and the victim K (the 4 years of age) for about two weeks of treatment.

arrow