Residence

Reference domicile

A. Error of mistake

The defendant's payment of a traffic accident did not cause any damage to human life, moved the vehicle to a safe place, sticking the name of the damaged vehicle to a safe place, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant was taking measures required by Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (the fine of 2,000, 000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of fact

1) Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “When any person is killed or injured or any goods are damaged by the traffic of any motor vehicle, the driver or any other crew member of the motor vehicle shall immediately stop the motor vehicle and provide assistance to casualties.” The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic dangers and obstacles on the road, thereby ensuring the safe and smooth operation of the road.

In order to ensure traffic, it is not intended to recover the damage of the victim, not to recover the damage. In this case, the measures to be taken by the driver should be taken appropriately according to the specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures should be taken to the extent normally required in light of the sound form (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2001, Jun. 28, 2002, etc.).

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① illegally parked a boom truck on the roadside, as shown in the following photographs at the accident site: ② in the vicinity of the accident site, the vehicles that turn to the left on the left at the same time as the Defendant’s vehicle did not find illegal trucks at the new wall time, and there was a high possibility for them to receive them (refer to the investigation record No. 77 pages); ③ in the Defendant’s vehicle’s back portion of the above boom truck, were scattered on the floor; and in light of the fact that the flow of the boom and the boom, which flow out from the Defendant’s vehicle, were going on the road, it is reasonable to view that the accident site was more dangerous than before the accident occurred; ② in the vicinity of the accident site, there was a new traffic danger and obstacle, and thus, there was a danger or obstacle to the vehicle’s vehicle.

A person shall be appointed.

3) The Defendant alleged that he took measures required under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act by keeping name cards on the damaged vehicle, but the purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles that occur on the road and to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic, and it is not to recover damage to the victim. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant left the name of his contact address to recover damage without removing the “new traffic risks and obstacles that the Defendant caused.” However, it is difficult to deem that the measures required under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act have been taken solely on the ground that he left the name of his contact address to recover damage to the victim.

4) Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. Determination of unfair sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing

1) The fact that the illegal parking of the victim was partially causing the instant traffic accident, the fact that the victim left the name of the defendant on the damaged vehicle, and the fact that the victim subscribed to a comprehensive insurance policy is recognized.

2) However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant denied the crime and did not repent the mistake; (b) the Defendant left the scene without leaving the scene of the accident despite having caused a traffic accident; (c) the Defendant was punished for driving under the influence of alcohol; and (d) other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing specified in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, circumstances leading to the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the favorable circumstances of the Defendant as seen earlier, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Jong-chul

Judges Hak-chan