특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal of this case was that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendant, such as the violation of the duty of care in the front line.
2. The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be included in the crime of occupational negligence, and even if the crime of occupational negligence is not recognized, if the crime of occupational negligence is recognized, a judgment of conviction shall be rendered, and if not, a judgment of dismissal of prosecution shall be rendered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do2360, Mar. 13, 190; 94Do2349, Nov. 11, 1994).
Therefore, the lower court that rendered a judgment dismissing public prosecution on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s occupational negligence, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment
3. The prosecutor's argument of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even though there are reasons for ex officio reversal of the reasons for appeal.
Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, E, which suffered the instant accident, may be acknowledged as facing the fact that the vehicle parked on the right side of the motor vehicle operated by the defendant on five cm, and the vehicle was faced with the front side of the said motor vehicle or the right side of the rear panion. Thus, the defendant could have discovered E before the accident occurred.
If the defendant was found or discovered, it is difficult to view that the defendant was unable to stop without any reason, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was negligent on duty.
Therefore, prosecutor's argument is without merit.
4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following reasons are as follows.