특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In light of the degree of damage caused by mistake of facts, the Defendant did not recognize the degree of damage caused by the accident as a minor and did not recognize that it was an emergency situation. After the accident, it was thought that the procedure for compensating the victim for damages would have been carried out, and that the Defendant’s status was given to the victim before leaving the site, and the Defendant was given his name before leaving the site, and thus, the Defendant was out of the scene of the mind that it would be a problem because he did not snickly, on the day of the accident, and thus, the Defendant did not have the criminal intent of escape, and does not fall under the case where he escaped without taking measures after the accident. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing judgment (a fine of KRW 5 million) by the lower
B. The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.
In addition to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below's duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, namely, a person who reported to an insurance company and the police immediately after the accident of this case is the victim, and the defendant does not contact with his insurance company or report to the police agency or 119 rescue team (the defendant received insurance from his insurance company after about 3 hours have elapsed since her escape) (Evidence Records 56,57,63 pages). In addition, the court below's aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.
Therefore, the defendant.