A. Defendant 1

The punishment of 2 years and 6 months sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2 (Defendant of the Supreme Court’s judgment)

(1) misunderstanding of facts

A) Although there is a high possibility that Defendant 2 had already died before Defendant 2 shocked the victim due to a fatal injury caused by Defendant 1’s primary accident at the time of the instant case, the lower court found Defendant 2 guilty of this part of the facts charged without clear proof of the victim’s survival, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The accident site of this case is a narrow sloping road of the first line which is not installed with street lights. At the time of this case, it was difficult to see that Defendant 2 had a duty of care to prepare and drive a person on the road while predicting that he could enjoy it on the road. However, the judgment of the court below that found Defendant 2 guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C) Defendant 2: (a) thought the body of wild animals at the time when the victim was overwork and did not think that the body was overworked; and (b) did not think that the body was shocked; and (c) did not recognize that the above defendant had an intention to escape, even though it was difficult to deem that the defendant had an intention to escape, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months of probation, 3 years of probation, and 200 hours of community service, which was sentenced by the court below, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on Defendant 1

Although Defendant 1’s mistake is against himself and there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, the victim’s bereaved family members and the bereaved family members have agreed to do so, the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed without considering the following: (a) the crime of this case was committed without considering the degree of 100 meters used on the road after drinking and without checking whether the victim suffered serious injury; (b) the crime of this case led to the second accident by Defendant 2, resulting in the death of the victim; and (c) there was a serious result of the occurrence of the second accident by Defendant 2; (d) the court below sentenced the lower sentence to the above Defendant through discretionary mitigation; and (e) there was no other normal relation or change of circumstances that may reduce the above punishment in the first instance trial; and (e) the above Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime; and (e) the above Defendant’s assertion that there was no reason to impose punishment too unfair after considering the following circumstances.

B. Determination on Defendant 2

1) Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A) Determination as to whether the victim had already died at the time of the second accident

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim died while transferring the hospital, and the date and time of the death on February 22, 2013 (in accordance with the investigation record, 46 pages), and (ii) according to the autopsy report by the National Scientific Investigation Agency, the victim suffered fatal damage by Defendant 1’s vehicle but does not seem to have suffered fatal damage, but all the Defendants’ vehicle appears to have caused serious tension and damage to the victim by reverse her chest and her part (as of the investigation record, 189 pages), (iii) it was difficult to view that Defendant 2 died again at the time of the death of the victim, and (iv) it was difficult to view that the victim was at the speed of 1 to 20km after the death of the victim as Defendant 1’s accident, and even after the death of Defendant 1, Defendant 1 was at considerable speed of 1 to 40 meters after the accident (as of this case, Defendant 2 was at the victim’s speed of 1 to 70km.

B) Determination as to whether occupational negligence is recognized

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the instant accident site is a narrow bridge of the first line, where the street, etc. is not installed, and (ii) the instant accident site was a situation where the view was not well secured due to the low speed. (iii) Notwithstanding the fact that Defendant 2 was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the small line was 2 disease at the time, and his memory was bread, and Defendant 2 was under the influence of alcohol without due care for the reason that the location of the instant accident was the length of commuting, and caused the instant accident (Article 14 through 116 of the Investigation Records, Defendant 2 was under the influence of the prosecution, and Defendant 2 was under the duty of care to the above 2nd driver of the narrow speed road at night without due care for the reason that he was under the duty of care to the above 6th driver of the instant case at night, and thus, Defendant 2 was under the duty of care to the above 2nd.

C) Determination as to whether a person was carrying out with the intention of escape after recognizing the station and fact

원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 아래의 사실관계 및 사정 즉, ① 피고인 2는 수사기관에서 피해자를 역과할 당시 ‘덜컹’하면서 무언가를 역과한다는 느낌을 받았는데 좌우바퀴 모두로 앞뒤 2번에 걸쳐 역과를 하였다는 취지로 진술하고 있는 점(수사기록 제276, 277쪽), ② 그럼에도 피고인 2는 차에서 즉시 정차하여 역과한 것이 무엇인지 제대로 확인하지 않은 채 차량 속도를 줄이지 아니하고 그대로 진행한 점, ③ 피고인 2는 이 사건 사고로부터 일주일 정도 후인 2013. 2. 28. 논산시 (이하 생략)에 있는 ○○카센터에서 사고차량 하부에 대한 언더코팅을 한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 2는 이 사건 당시 무언가를 역과하였다는 것을 분명히 인지하였고 그것이 사람일지도 모른다고 인식하면서 도주의 의사를 가지고 현장을 이탈하였다고 봄이 상당하므로, 피고인 2의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

2) Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The crime of this case is deemed to have been caused by Defendant 1, but the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed under the influence of alcohol while driving while under the influence of alcohol despite the fact that the above Defendant had been punished for driving under the influence of alcohol, and the quality of the crime is not good. The crime of this case was committed under the influence of alcohol, and the crime of Defendant 1 was combined with the above Defendant, which led to the serious result of the death of the victim. The court below sentenced a suspended sentence in consideration of the circumstances that the above Defendant had already asserted, and the court below cannot find the normal relationship or change of circumstances that would reduce the above punishment differently in the trial, and there is no other circumstance that the court below sentenced a suspended sentence in consideration of the circumstances that the above Defendant had already asserted, and there is no other circumstance or situation of situation that the above punishment is unfair since the court below's sentencing is too unreasonable. Thus, the above argument of Defendant 2's above is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since all of the appeals by the defendants are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Chan-hee (Presiding Judge)