특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치사)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant was in the state at the time of committing the instant crime and left the scene of the instant accident without knowing at all the fact that he had a mental disorder due to shock caused by an accident, and thus, there was no intention to commit an escape.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the establishment of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the escape death) by the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six years of imprisonment) is too heavy.
2. Determination
A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The phrase "when the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the damaged person" as provided by Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person although he/she was aware of the damaged person's death or injury, resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident's identity. The degree of awareness of the damaged person's death or injury does not necessarily require a definite recognition, but it is sufficient if the driver of the accident knew that he/she could easily confirm the accident if he/she was directly checked immediately after the accident, but even if he/she did not take such measures, and if he/she left the scene, he/she was aware that the driver of the accident had an intention to escape even if he/she did so.
I see that it is.
In addition, even if the defendant was not aware of the fact of the accident clearly, he was aware that the accident caused the shock of the object at the time of the accident, and it was easy for the defendant to get off the vehicle and directly confirm it.