특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Defendant
The appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the appellate brief dated September 16, 2014, which was submitted by an attorney-at-law within the lawful grounds for appeal) (the appellate brief dated September 16, 2014, which was submitted within the legitimate grounds for appeal by the defense counsel, did not contain any assertion that the sentence of the court below is unreasonable. The appellate brief dated May 15, 2015, where the period for submitting the appellate brief was limited to the period for submitting the appellate brief, stating that “if there is a conviction of conviction, the appellate brief would be issued a favorable disposition of the suspended sentence,” and it cannot
A. The Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) not only committed relief measures against the victim D immediately after the accident, but also committed traffic accidents listed in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant accident”) where there is no need to take relief measures as minor.
In addition, annoying person who suffers from the victim is not in need of separate treatment, and it does not constitute "injury" under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act.
And the defendant did not commit any act of escape, and there was no intention to commit such act.
B. In light of the fact that the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unnecessary Measures after Accidents) was committed and there was no damage to the victim's earth and sand that the victim was driven by the instant accident, and the fact that the defendant confirmed the victim's earth and sand that the victim was landed immediately after the instant accident, it does not constitute a case where the defendant did not take the measures under Article 54(1)
2. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, and there was no error by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the facts, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)