특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case for the following reasons is erroneous and erroneous.
The accident of this case was entirely caused by the occupational negligence of the victim, and there was no occupational negligence of the defendant.
B. Even if there was some occupational negligence on the part of the Defendant, the Defendant did not recognize the occurrence of the instant accident itself, and there was no intention of escape.
C. The victim cannot be deemed to have suffered an injury to the extent that he/she can be assessed as an injury under the Criminal Act.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to whether there was a defendant's occupational negligence in relation to the accident of this case, the accident of this case constitutes "a person who commits a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act by the transportation of a motor vehicle," which is the premise of the crime of violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, regardless of the defendant's occupational negligence and the relative seriousness of the victim's occupational negligence in relation to the accident of this case, where the defendant's occupational negligence in relation to the accident of this case was committed, and the defendant's occupational negligence in relation to the change of course from the two lanes to the one lane without any direction, etc. in relation to the direction of the victim's vehicle, and even though the defendant's vehicle is changing from the two lanes to the one lane, the defendant's occupational negligence in relation to the accident
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.
[In relation to this, in the case of a vehicle driver who causes a traffic accident, which is a premise for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, the existence of negligence in relation to the pertinent traffic accident is unclear (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1731, May 24, 2002). As such, the Defendant who provided the cause of the instant accident during driving of the vehicle.