도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) The main point of the facts charged in this case is that “the Defendant driven a vehicle Chydyd (hereinafter “Defendant”) owned by the Defendant at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, and did not immediately stop and take necessary measures despite the destruction of the utility model owner owned by KT to an extent equivalent to KRW 632,00,00,” but the court below presumed that fugitives were generated on the ground of the destruction of the front part of the vehicle’s right line without stating that the facts charged were damaged; (b) since the place where a utility model owner was broken is not a road under the Road Traffic Act, it is not a place subject to the application of the Road Traffic Act; and (c) even if a road is used as a space between a building and a telegraph that cannot pass through pedestrians, it did not interfere with pedestrian traffic as well as pedestrian traffic; and (d) it was hard to see that there was an error in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the facts charged in this case as evidence by the residents of the accident at the time of this case.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 4,00,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles and misconception of facts
A. In a case where there is no possibility that the judgment of the court below would substantially disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his right of defense against the principle of no appeal, the facts constituting the facts charged are identical to the facts charged.