특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and by a fine of 300,000 won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment and fine of three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, we examine ex officio the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the occupational injury and damage to property among the facts charged in the instant case.
The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: "The defendant driving CT100 amba in the four-lane of the fourth line in front of the boundary of the village of Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-do, and driving CT100 amba in the four-lane of the fourth line in front of the boundary of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the village of the river of the river of the road of the road of the road of the road of the road of the road of the road of the road of the road of the road of the road of the road of the road of the road of
This is a crime falling under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, and can not be punished against the victim's express intent under Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accidents.
However, according to the records, the victim E expressed his/her wish not to punish the defendant at the time of the police investigation on July 29, 2012 (in case of investigation record 46 pages), and this part of the prosecution thereafter is against the law.
The lower court should have dismissed this part of the facts charged in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
On the other hand, the judgment of the court below on the ground that the charges of violation of the Road Traffic Act are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the remaining charges, and thus, the judgment below cannot be maintained in its entirety.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed ex officio.