beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.11.28 2017노2832

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant caused a traffic accident and suffered an injury to the victim D, the lower court did not recognize it. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable and unfair on the other hand, while the prosecutor asserts that it is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As the court below properly admitted the factual misunderstanding, the defendant caused a traffic accident by collision with D's vehicle with his own vehicle, caused a traffic accident again while the defendant escaped, and led to the defendant.

D caused another traffic accident in another time by blocking the defendant. In light of the fact that not only the shock at the time of the first collision with D's vehicle, but also the repair cost incurred by the above accident is merely about KRW 180,000,000,000,000, and the repair cost incurred by the second traffic accident by the defendant and D is likely to have reached about KRW 1760,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

It is difficult to readily conclude.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is rejected.

B. The criminal defendant committed a minor injury to the victims, agreed with the victim I, and did not have any criminal history.

On the other hand, the defendant is not only causing personal and material damage by causing a traffic accident while driving a vehicle while being in force, but also causing a traffic accident while flying without taking necessary measures, and thus the criminal liability is not weak.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the sentencing conditions specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion and is too heavy or light.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, it is true.