logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2018.05.18 2017고정508
도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant shall engage in the duty of driving Category C cargo vehicles.

On June 30, 2017, the Defendant driven a cargo truck at around 09:30 on June 30, 2017, and tried to make a right-way from the front side of the E store located in Pyeong-gun D to the distance of school history from the front side of the school site, and tried not to obstruct the progress of the motor vehicle on the left side of the proceeding direction.

In such cases, the driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to accurately operate the steering gear and operation system for the driver of the motor vehicle, to grasp the traffic situation in the front and rear sides and to prevent the accident in advance by driving safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and escaped without taking necessary measures to damage the repair cost of KRW 455,318 by shocking the front part of the G SP car driven by the G SP which was driven by F while stopping in the rear side.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and H;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Each police statement made to F and H:

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. Application of written estimate or photograph-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the Defendant did not intend to flee since the Defendant’s cargo vehicle was dissatisfed in a sloped place, not driving under the Road Traffic Act, but did not know that the vehicle was shocked in the rear bank.

Therefore, according to each of the above evidences, in order to make the defendant attempt to enter the road and not obstruct the passage of the motor vehicle running in the front direction, the motor vehicle which was parked in the front direction was damaged by shocking the vehicle at the front direction.

arrow