특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than nine months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving service of CFUMA 125 Oba.
On March 2, 2018, around 12:03, the Defendant had 143 modern apartment front of the road at the Hani-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si, and proceeded along one lane between the three-lanes from the Li-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si.
Since the location is a place where a crosswalk is installed, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care not to obstruct or endanger pedestrian crossing by temporarily stopping in front of the crosswalk.
Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to temporarily stop and did not temporarily stop the part of the victim D (at the age of 56) on the right side of the crosswalk which was the left side of the victim D (at the age of 56) with the right side of the defendant's right side.
Ultimately, the Defendant got away without taking necessary measures, such as aiding the damaged person, even though he/she suffered injuries, such as salt, tensions, etc., in need of approximately two weeks of medical treatment due to occupational negligence as seen above, even though he/she did so.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Statement made by the police against D;
1. A report on internal investigation (as to attachment of a written diagnosis of a victim):
1. A survey report on actual conditions;
1. A photograph at the scene of an accident, CCTV image photograph;
1. The term "when the driver of the accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the damaged person" as provided by Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means the case where the driver of the accident does not take the "measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act" in spite of his knowledge of the fact that the injured person was injured by the accident, resulting in a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed because he escaped from the place where the accident occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do5023, Mar. 28, 200).