[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)·도로교통법위반][공1996.6.1.(11),1635]
One of the two crimes in the relationship of commercial concurrent crimes shall be pardoned, subject to a judgment of acquittal, and in the case of not guilty, whether a judgment of acquittal shall be sentenced separately from the disposition (negative)
After damage, the portion of the non-measures (violation of Articles 106 and 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act) is subject to a judgment of acquittal on general amnesty, but the court below acquitted the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicles) which are related to the commercial concurrent crimes, so no separate decision of acquittal shall be made.
Articles 50(1) and 106 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 1 subparag. 11 of the General Amnesty (Presidential Decree No. 14818), Article 326 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 77Do1320 Decided July 12, 197 (Gong1977, 1026) Supreme Court Decision 83Do1288 Decided August 23, 1983 (Gong1983, 1451)
Defendant
Prosecutor
Attorney Kim Sejong-han
Seoul High Court Decision 95No1466 delivered on August 29, 1995
Of the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the damage of property by occupational negligence is reversed. Of the facts charged in this case, the above damage of property by occupational negligence is acquitted.
1. Prosecutor’s ground of appeal on the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's determination that the court below is just in its determination that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged for the reasons stated in its holding, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal. The argument is without merit.
2. Prior to the prosecutor's grounds of appeal on the violation of the Road Traffic Act, the court below found the defendant guilty of the violation of Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 50 (1) (a) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 50 (1) (a) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, were enacted on the date of 198 of the crime of violation of the Act.
3. Therefore, the appeal by the prosecutor on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) is dismissed on the ground that the appeal by the prosecutor is without merit. As to this part of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance that reversed the part on the damage and destruction of goods by occupational negligence (violation of Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act) related to the remaining crimes and the substantive concurrent crimes, the judgment of acquittal is rendered to the defendant pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the part on the non-measures (violation of Articles 106 and 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act) after the destruction is subject to a judgment of acquittal on the above general amnesty, but the judgment of the court below on the charge of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (A
Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)