특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error or misapprehension of the legal principle) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, did not immediately stop and take measures, such as aiding and abetting the victim, even though the defendant caused the instant accident as stated in this part of the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the court below judged that it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant escaped as a criminal intention after the defendant caused the accident of this case, and sentenced the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.
On July 23, 201, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 22:10 on July 23, 201, while driving the vehicle at around 744-15, Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, in the direction of distribution and ICT, the surrounding view was not revealed at night at the time of the accident, and at the time of the accident, at the time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle is in the vicinity of the crosswalk, and the operation of the brake and steering gear accurately, and the driver of the vehicle has the duty of care to prevent the accident by driving the vehicle at the front, rear, and right and right and right and right and right and right, the Defendant did not neglect the duty of care to prevent the accident while driving the vehicle at the same time, and did not immediately stop the victim D's right and right and right side of the victim D, who walked on the road at the right end of the Defendant vehicle, and did not immediately stop the part of the victim's escape requiring treatment, and did not immediately stop it.
B. The court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the above facts charged that the defendant caused the instant accident and escaped. The reasons for the judgment below and the decision of the court below are as follows.