교통사고처리특례법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for one year.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. The sentence (one-year imprisonment without prison labor) declared by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant for ex officio determination on the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents against Victims F and G among the facts charged in the instant case.
The proviso of Article 4(1)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that the special provision on punishment shall not apply to cases where a victim suffers danger to life, becomes an influorious or incurable disease due to a bodily injury, or is subscribed to insurance or mutual aid as provided for in the main sentence of Article 4(1). On the other hand, Article 3(2) of the same Act provides that the crime of injury resulting from occupational negligence due to traffic of a vehicle shall be the crime of non-compliance with intent. However, the aforementioned provision does not provide that “if a victim suffers danger to life or is influorous or incurable disease due to a bodily injury, or if a victim suffers from an influorous or incurable disease” as an exception to the crime of non-compliance with intent.
In light of the above relevant provisions, Article 3 (2) of the Act on the Punishment of Anti-Corruption shall apply to a case where the driver of a vehicle commits a crime resulting from a traffic accident causing the danger of the victim's life or causing a imprisony or incurable disease.
According to the records, since a written agreement that the defendant was not punished by the defendant on June 9, 2014 and June 18, 2014, which was before the pronouncement of the judgment below after the prosecution of this case, by mutual agreement with the victim F and G on June 18, 2014, and on June 17, 2014, and June 18, 2014, each of the facts (court records 92,10 pages) submitted by the court below may be recognized, the prosecution of this part shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.