beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.01.08 2015노879

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal doctrine and mistake, the Defendant did not know that the Defendant’s driving vehicle was the victim at the time of the instant traffic accident, and did not recognize that the victim was in need of rescue due to the injury, and thus, the Defendant did not have an intention to escape

The instant traffic accident was caused by the Defendant’s driver’s walked and the Defendant’s driver’s walked against the victim, and thereby, the completeness of the victim’s body was damaged, the disability was caused, or the health condition was changed to a bad condition.

Since it cannot be seen that the victim suffered injury, the victim suffered injury.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant is too unreasonable. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles 1) The phrase “when an accident driver runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the injured person,” as prescribed by Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Cases”) refers to the case where the accident driver runs away from the scene before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the injured person, even though he/she was aware of the fact that the injured person was killed due to the accident, resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident.

In such a case, the degree of perception of the fact that the injured person was killed due to an accident does not necessarily require confirmation and dolusent recognition even if it is not required (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2654, Sept. 30, 2005, etc.). In light of the legislative intent of Article 5-3 of the Act and its legal interests, it was necessary for the driver of the accident to take measures, such as aiding the injured person.

If it is not recognized, the driver of the accident shall not take such measures and shall be involved in the accident.