도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) and the petition of appeal and the statement of grounds for appeal submitted by the defendant and his defense counsel are only stated as the grounds for appeal, but the term "dubly unfair" is not specified as the grounds for appeal.
Although the defendant appealed on July 16, 2019 on the second day of the trial, he/she stated that he/she lodged an appeal on the grounds of “the form of unfair punishment,” this cannot be deemed legitimate grounds for appeal as it was subsequent to the lapse of the period for filing the appeal. Therefore, only the argument of “the fact-finding person” is examined
At the time of the accident of this case, a substitute driver was driving, and the defendant did not drive.
2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court, at around 22:55 on January 14, 2018, acknowledged the fact that the Mat Car owned by the Defendant was caused by an accident involving the centralized separation zone installed on the road in front of the “D”less point in Tong-si, Tong-si, Seoul, and the Defendant was driving at the K apartment parking lot at around 23:03 on January 14, 2018.
The defendant argued that the above car was driven by the defendant from the entrance of the apartment to the underground parking lot, but the above car was driven by the defendant from the entrance of the apartment to the underground parking lot. However, in light of the road status, driving distance, driving hours, etc., the other person than the defendant did not seem to have driven the above car. ② Even though the defendant was on his behalf, it is difficult to understand that the substitute driving specialist was driven only at the entrance of the apartment, and the defendant was driven from the entrance of the apartment to the underground parking lot, ③ at the first time of the police investigation, the defendant was a public parking lot where the above car was parked.