beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.28 2016고단7315

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in the operation of a rocketing taxi.

On May 22, 2016, at around 04:20 on May 22, 2016, the Defendant proceeded two lanes in front of the F Hospital in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E from the front side of the F Hospital to the boundary of the Bora Hospital in the new Twit-distance basin.

At the time of night, since it is not good in view of the view, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle shall not drive the motor vehicle at such a speed or in such a manner as to inflict any danger and injury on others, depending on the traffic situation of the road and the structure and performance of the motor vehicle, and there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately operating steering gear, brakes, and other devices by reducing speed and debrising on the right and the right and the right and the right and the right of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to perform the above duty of care and caused the victim G (25 years old) crossing the road to the right side from the left side of the running direction of the said taxi to use the victim G (25 years old) on the road by shocking the front side of the said taxi with the front side penter and the front side penter of the said taxi.

Accordingly, even though the defendant had the victim suffered damage to the upper pelle and the rectangular pelle of the non-standing executives requiring treatment for about six weeks, the defendant stopped immediately and did not take necessary measures such as providing relief to the injured party (the defendant did not escape because he was unaware of the occurrence of the accident) and escaped as it is, (the defendant did not know of the occurrence of the accident. However, although the defendant could have certain obstacles to finding the injured party before shock, it appears that the defendant could have been fully aware of the shock in light of the speed at the time, the shock level, the upper part of the shocked vehicle, etc., and the defendant changed the lane from the first way to the second way immediately after the shocking of the injured party, and the signal at the intersection thereafter.