특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was fully aware of the fact that he was punished for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (do referred to as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and that he can be punished for the same crime if he deserts the site without relief measures
The defendant left the scene without any contact point without any particular relief measures, and the driverless driving at the investigative agency should be dismissed at the investigation agency, leaving the site.
In light of the statement, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had the criminal intent to escape.
I would like to say.
Nevertheless, the defendant had no intention to commit an escape.
The judgment of the court below that found the defendant not guilty on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the main award) is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence) is too unfluent and unfair.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged, on the ground that the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to flee, while sufficiently explaining the grounds for determination on the assertion of mistake of facts.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the accident of this case: (i) the victim's left shoulder and left face part of the victim's driver's freight ties; (ii) the victim did not have a eye on the shock side; (iii) the victim got her hand and knee away from the future when she became in contact with the floor; and (iv) the victim went to the hospital without being 30 minutes after the accident of this case without being feled; and (v) considering the fact that the collision between the vehicle of this case and the victim does not seem to be sneed (Evidence Nos. 11 and 12).