[특정범죄가중처벌들에관한법률위반(도주차량)][공1994.11.15.(980),3034]
The case holding that the defendant's act of leaving the victim 2 years old due to a traffic accident by negligence constitutes Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes on the ground that the victim, who was the victim of the victim 2 years old due to the victim's negligence, was aboard a motor vehicle and treated as a sprinkr at the pharmacy, and that the victim was able to return to the victim by house without any protective measure on the ground that
In a case where the defendant's negligence caused a traffic accident to the victim of the second year old age who caused the second year's injury requiring medical treatment, and where the defendant himself stated that the victim had no day to go to the hospital at first, but the victim had no day to go to the hospital, and that he had been given treatment of disinfection and friendly typhism at the pharmacy, the case holding that the defendant cannot easily be seen as the victim of the second year's accident since the victim was a child who was completely unable to go beyond the ground due to this accident and who did not have expertise in medical science to the extent that the defendant's own disinfection is required to disinfect the above part to the hospital, the defendant should have the victim undergo medical treatment, and the victim of the second year's accident should be taken to the hospital, and if the victim did not have any other protective measures because he asked about whether the person who caused the accident is the defendant, who is unable to memory the victim, and that the victim can not be found as the victim of the second year's accident under Article 5 of the Aggravated Punishment Act.
Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act
Defendant
Defendant
Daejeon High Court Decision 94No64 delivered on May 19, 1994
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence adopted by the court of first instance that the defendant caused the traffic accident of this case by negligence not responding to the situation of the accident point of this case, and that the victim (two years of age at that time) suffered injuries, such as friendly Government, Jeonbal department, inner part, and Ko, which require treatment for about two weeks due to the accident of this case, and in particular, the examination team was exempted from the upper part and the skin was faced with or was faced with, and the face was left down, and there was a suspicion of cerebral disease due to the fact that the traffic accident of this case was caused by the victim's negligence, and the degree of negligence is serious, and that the defendant's negligence was not caused by the victim's negligence, but caused by the defendant's negligence, and that there was no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intention of the crime of injury and the judgment of the court below that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as evidence in the judgment below's reasoning and the record.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the above evidence, the court below acknowledged that the victim's 1 was the victim of the accident at the time and exceeded the ground of this case (the defendant disputes several points from shocking points, but this is not an issue in recognizing the defendant's liability) and that the defendant was carrying the victim's vehicle at the first time, and that the defendant purchased disinfection drugs and sulfur uritation at his pharmacy, and then disinfected the victim's upper part, and did not know about the fact that the victim's 1 did not know about the above 50 meters away from the point of view of the accident, and that the court below acknowledged that the victim's 1 did not know about the above 50 meters away from the point of view of the above 50 meters away from the hospital of this case, and that the court below did not know about the fact that the victim did not know about the above 50 meters away from the hospital of this case, and that the court below did not know about the fact that the victim did not know about the above 200 meters away from the hospital of this case.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)