The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, did not recognize the establishment of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) in addition to the establishment of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) by deeming that the Defendant did not seem to have inflicted an injury on the victim due to occupational negligence and caused the victim’s bicycle to be damaged by repair cost of KRW 240,000,000.

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes between crimes under Article 5-3 (1) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act and Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor appealed on the part of the judgment below regarding the crime of violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, which is the guilty part of the judgment below, but did not state the grounds for objection in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.