beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.09.19 2013노1962

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) The Defendant knew that the Defendant’s vehicle was infinite with plastic bars, a central separation facility, and did not recognize the occurrence of an accident where the victim E was involved with the vehicle driving, and even if so, the occurrence of the accident was known.

Even if the degree of shock at the time is minor, the victims did not recognize the injury and the damage of the vehicle.

② In light of the shock degree of the instant accident, etc., the victims cannot be deemed to have suffered injuries due to the instant accident.

③ The instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s negligence, since it was caused by the victim E while driving a vehicle.

(2) The arguments in the above paragraphs (2) and (3) are not grounds for appeal as stated in the grounds for appeal submitted by the defense counsel of the defendant, and they cannot be viewed as legitimate grounds for appeal since they were filed after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal. However, the judgment is made ex officio as to the legitimacy of

A. Article 54(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides aid to the victim under Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as to the occurrence of an accident, the victims of the accident, and the recognition of the damage to a vehicle, and the case where the driver runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, even though the victim was aware of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, refers to the case where the driver of the accident escaped from the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, and providing aid to him/her.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do5023, Mar. 28, 2000; 2010Do13091, Apr. 28, 201). The lower court and the trial were duly adopted and investigated.