특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: ① The direct cause of the instant accident is not the Defendant’s collision but the Defendant’s speed and driving is the subject of the instant accident; ② Even if the Defendant’s collision was the direct cause of the instant accident, the Defendant did not conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle; and even if the instant accident was not caused by the fault of the victim, the Defendant did not take relief measures on the ground that there was no intention of escape, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged in the instant case, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. We examine the causal relationship between the Defendant’s act and the instant accident. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant’s driver vehicle is a Track freight vehicle, and the victim’s driver vehicle is K5 vehicles. The victim’s detailed statement differs, or from the investigative agency, the Defendant’s vehicle, who was on the two-lane road, was entering the two-lane road, without turning an emergency, entered the two-lane one lane. The Defendant’s vehicle, who was on the two-lane road, could not move on the left side, was forced to stop in the first lane after the collision between the central separation zone and stop. The Defendant’s vehicle’s change to the one-lane line was caused by the negligence of entering the two-lane, and the Defendant did not turn on the two-lane vehicle in the direction of the victim’s vehicle, but did not turn on the two-lane more than the two-lane vehicle. As seen in the evidence record 33, 109 pages, the Defendant’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle and the two-lane continued.