특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that at the time of preparing a statement of mistake of facts (not guilty part) traffic accident, the victim stated that “A vehicle was displayed”, the right side of the Defendant vehicle, left away from fences, and damaged the rear wheels of the vehicle due to the instant accident, the shock caused by the instant accident was the degree that the victim could suffer the injury.
Furthermore, according to evidence such as the victim's statement at the investigation stage, traffic accident report, diagnosis report for the victim, and Clince of the G Hospital, it is recognized that the victim actually suffered an injury due to the accident in this case.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is erroneous.
B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) against the Defendant is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant of this part of the facts charged is a person who drives a passenger car in his own B. The Defendant, around 06:20 on March 06, 2018, 2018, two lanes in front of the D Hospital located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) came to proceed at a low speed in the direction of a flow-distance distance from a sexual investigative distance. In such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to properly examine the front side and the left side, and to accurately manipulate the brakes and steering gear, thereby preventing the accident. Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this, while driving the victim E (Seoul, 53 years old and older, 5 years old and the part of the Defendant driving with the front part of the damaged vehicle, and then reconvened the part of the damaged vehicle into the front part of the damaged vehicle.
Ultimately, the Defendant is guilty of occupational negligence as above.