교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was agreed with the victim by the lower court, but the lower court convicted him of the charges of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of
2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on
According to the records, it is evident that the victim G expressed his wish not to punish the defendant on August 23, 2016, which was after the prosecution of this case.
Therefore, even though the court below should pronounce a judgment dismissing a public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court below erred in the judgment of the court below since it imposed an excessive sentence and convicted the facts charged in this case
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the following judgment is rendered again after pleading.
【Discretionary Judgment】
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in driving a motor vehicle with D low-speed.
On December 1, 2015, the Defendant driven the above car at around 15:40, and turned back the front side of the Flaundry site E in Ulsan-dong-gu, Ulsan-gu, the front side of the Flaundry is about 10km from the front side of the river to the large-scale laundry site.
In such cases, the defendant who is engaged in the driving of motor vehicles has a duty of care to check the safety of career by properly examining the post.
Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and got the victim G who was behind the passenger car due to the negligence of the defendant, and got the victim G to go beyond the floor.
The Defendant, by these occupational negligence, brain to the right side of the first degree of brain disease disorder.