특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) was not known to the fact that the Defendant did not know the fact that the Defendant did not reverse the victim at the time of the instant accident, and thus, there was no intention
2. Determination
A. "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" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to a case where the driver of an accident does not break away from the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, despite his/her awareness of the fact that the injured person was injured by the accident, and causing a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed. The degree of awareness of the fact that the injured person was killed by the accident is not necessarily definite but is sufficiently recognized.
However, as a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, dolusent intention refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed as uncertain and it is acceptable, and there was an incomplete intention.
In order to determine the possibility of occurrence of a crime, not only is there a perception of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, but also there is an internal intent to accept the risk of occurrence of a crime. Whether an actor has accepted the possibility of occurrence of a crime must be confirmed from the standpoint of the actor in consideration of how to evaluate the possibility of occurrence of a crime if the general public is based on specific circumstances, such as the form of an act that was externally revealed and the situation of an act, without depending on the statement of the actor. In such a case, the burden of proof on the existence of a willful negligence, which is a subjective element of the crime charged, is the prosecutor, and at the same time, the burden of proof is the prosecutor.