특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) Since the Defendant confirmed the status of the victim after the occurrence of a traffic accident as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant accident”), and left the scene with the permission of the taxi driver of the damaged vehicle, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not take necessary measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act.
(2) In light of the victim’s legal testimony and medical record, the instant accident cannot be deemed to have suffered bodily injury in light of the victim’s legal testimony and record.
(3) In light of the fact that the vehicle damage caused by the instant accident also caused by the occurrence of an accident can be completed if the cost of KRW 50,000 in consideration of the cost of repair, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had to take necessary measures in the event of causing the damage
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the prosecutor filed an application for amendments to the indictment with the purport that "the prosecutor damages 97,090 won of the repair cost to the effect that the amount of the repair cost would be damaged and damaged" in the indictment No. 13 of the indictment against the defendant, and the defendant calculated excessive repair cost. However, the prosecutor changed the indictment to "unexplic repair cost" after the inquiry into the I Co., Ltd., and the defendant's assertion through such questions is not necessary to take any measure, and it is not necessary to determine whether excessive repair cost has been calculated as long as the court considers it was necessary at the time of the accident in this case.
The judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as the case is changed by this court's permission.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles still exists.