특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant did not bound the Defendant’s vehicle to enter the front of his/her own vehicle and received the Defendant vehicle as they are, thus, not the Defendant’s driver.
However, even if the defendant did not directly manage the accident due to the accident in this case, the defendant was unable to directly manage the accident, and instead requested the victim to take relief measures, etc., instead of leaving the scene of the accident. At the time of leaving the scene of the accident, the first and the police cars had already been in the scene of the accident, so the defendant took necessary measures for the relief of the victim.
B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, first of all, the lower court’s determination on factual misunderstanding or legal doctrine reveals that the Defendant, while driving along the four-lane road along the three-lanes, was excessively running along the four-lanes, he left the vehicle and changed the vehicle to four-lanes after driving the vehicle, and the victim was working normally at a speed of about 80km speed from the four-lane road at a speed of speed of 80km per hour.
According to the above facts of recognition, since the change of the vehicle line in which the defendant was under way by changing the vehicle line in front of the victim's vehicle, and the victim did not avoid the vehicle in front of the victim's vehicle and conflict with the defendant's vehicle, it can be recognized that the traffic accident occurred by the defendant's negligence (the defendant asserts that he was not negligent because the victim was negligent because he did not report his vehicle at a speed and continued driving without reducing the speed. However, even if the negligence of failure to perform the duty of care on the part of the victim as the defendant's argument is recognized, it cannot be viewed that the relationship between the negligence of the defendant and the traffic accident in this case