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. Defendant 1’s mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine do not intentionally leave the scene of the instant accident, and even though there was no need to take measures, such as aiding the victim at the time of the instant accident, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of all the charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (i.e., escapeing vehicles) and violation of the Road Traffic Act (ii).
2) The defendant guilty of an unfair sentencing case
Even if the court below's sentence (3 million won) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Egressing Vehicles), the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of innocence and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment compared with the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and there is no error of
B. The purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles that may arise on the road and ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, not to restore the victim’s damage. In this case, measures to be taken by the driver should be adequately taken according to the specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures ordinarily required in light of a sound form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do214, Mar. 13, 2014). 2) In this case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court are as follows.