교통사고처리특례법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The defendant asserts the gist of the grounds for appeal that it is unfair for the prosecutor to be too uneasible because of the punishment sentenced by the court below (ten months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order). The defendant asserts that the prosecutor is too uneasy and unfair.
2. We examine both of the judgments on unfair sentencing.
The crime of this case committed by the defendant due to neglecting his duty of care in the front time while driving a motor vehicle, resulting in an injury to the victim, such as not restoring the victim's consciousness in a state of being mixed with a considerable period of time, and is disadvantageous to the defendant.
On the other hand, the defendant recognized that all of the crimes of this case were committed by himself, and the defendant and his family have made considerable efforts to receive a letter from the victim. In this regard, the victim's side did not want the punishment of the defendant, the vehicle of the defendant's driver is covered by a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and it is impossible to find the victim at the time of the accident of this case.
Although it is not visible, there is no serious negligence on the part of the defendant under the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, there is no specific punishment on the defendant, and the fact that the social relationship of the defendant seems to be relatively publicly announced is favorable to the defendant.
When comprehensively considering the above circumstances as well as the overall sentencing conditions of Article 51 of the Criminal Act as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is somewhat unreasonable.
Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is reasonable, and the prosecutor's above argument is without merit.
3. As such, the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is again decided as follows (the defendant's person is the defendant's person)