특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The victim of the misunderstanding of facts has suffered injury
Annoyedly, annoyer submitted a written diagnosis even though it is extremely difficult to see it.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the determination of whether there was a need to take measures such as aiding and abetting the injured party in light of the following: (a) the details of the incident; (b) the age and degree of the injured party’s injury; and (c) the circumstances following the accident should be based on a comprehensive consideration. However, there was no need to take measures such as aiding and abetting the injured party in light of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, given that Article 54(1) of the
In order to recognize that the victim actively expressed that relief measures need not be taken or that other emergency measures do not need to be taken, objective and clearly at the time immediately after the accident should be revealed. Only for the reasons that there was no big inconvenience in the victim’s movement after the accident, and there was no significant appearance, and that there was no need to do so on the sole basis of the fact that the degree of damage was found relatively minor and ex post facto.
In this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do14018, Jan. 12, 2012, etc.). 2), the Defendant’s appeal purported that there was no need to take measures, such as aiding and abetting the victim in relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (i.e., escape vehicles). Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s appeal was examined in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the following circumstances revealed by the records. As such, the Defendant provided relief to the victim after paying the instant traffic accident.