특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the victim of misunderstanding of facts has caused an accident by intentionally conflicting with the Defendant's ozone layer, which was normally operated by the victim of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant was not negligent in the occurrence of the accident, and the victim refused the request of the Defendant to leave the hospital, the Defendant did not intend to flee.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the victim cannot be deemed to have intentionally conflict with the Defendant, and the Defendant may be deemed to have attempted to flee after the occurrence of the accident.
1) The victim’s her her her m, which was going in the same direction as the Defendant’s her her m, shocked his her her her front m, and it is very difficult for the elderly victim, etc. to predict the direction of progress of the altobane, thereby causing an accident intentionally, and there is no statement or data that the victim had been her her mar in the direction of progress. 2) The victim refused the Defendant’s solicitation to the hospital on the ground that the her her mar changed his her mar to his mar in the house, and the Defendant was unable to confirm the identity of the Defendant by leaving the scene by leaving the victim’s mar number which is not connected with her mar.
3 The victim immediately reported the occurrence of the accident to the police around 11:35 on the day on which the accident occurred, which was about 4 hours after the accident that was not connected due to the fact that the defendant met with the cellular phone number that the defendant started.
Therefore, the court below's decision of conviction against the defendant is just and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant.