도로교통법위반(무면허운전)등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the first instance court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) against Defendant 1’s argument (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.
With respect to the assertion of the judgment below (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (or violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed measures after an accident), the defendant merely moved to another place in order to see a change after the accident and does not leave the scene with the intention of escape.
The defendant had no intention to commit an escape.
The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
The second sentence (one-year imprisonment) of the lower court (one-year imprisonment against the lower court’s second sentence) shall be too unhutiled and unfair.
The grounds for appeal by authority shall be examined ex officio prior to the judgment.
Article 38 of the Criminal Act provides that each crime of the original adjudication and the second adjudication resolution by the original adjudication are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment of the first and the second judgment cannot be convicted of all of the original judgment.
However, the grounds for appeal of the defendant's mistake of facts are still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
The instant traffic accident, which is acknowledged based on the evidence of determination as to the assertion of mistake among the grounds of appeal by the lower judgment, is located on the expressway. As such, the Defendant’s driving vehicle was damaged by approximately KRW 7.75 million for repair costs, and the Defendant’s driving vehicle was also severely damaged.
The driver'sO of the Patop vehicle suffered from the injury of 3 weeks, dong S, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks respectively (the 2017 Highestest 4504 Evidence No. 25-38, 44-50 pages). The Defendant was under drinking at 0.14% at the time, and the Defendant went away from the site to a gas station located far away from the accident site before the police and towing arrive (the trial record No. 69-71, 79, 163 pages, 41, 207 pages).