도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles recognize the fact that the defendant caused the accident by shocking the victim's vehicle by negligence at the time of the accident and failed to properly handle the accident. However, since there was no injury inflicted on the victim at the time, damage of the damaged vehicle was insignificant, as well as the accident was not scattered on the road, it is difficult to deem that there was a need to take necessary measures at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act at the time of the accident, and it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional intent for
B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio shall be examined ex officio.
A. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that when the dwelling, office or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that when the location of a defendant is not confirmed even though he/she was requested to investigate his/her whereabouts, requested the issuance of a detention warrant, requested correction of his/her address, or
According to the records of this case, the lower court: (a) served a copy of indictment, etc. on the Defendant’s address “Yyeong-si G and 202,” but did not serve as a closed door absence; (b) entrusted the detection of materials on “Yung-si and I apartment 208,” which is the said address and another address; and (c) sent a reply that only the Defendant’s address was unknown; and (iv) Nevertheless, the lower court served the Defendant on August 13, 2014 the service of a copy of indictment and other documents.