beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.04.09 2019노732

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower judgment convicting the Defendant of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes, even though the degree of injury of the victim was insignificant and there was no need to take relief measures, was unlawful. 2) The degree of physical damage was insignificant, and there was no need to take relief measures since fugitives did not fall. Since the Defendant issued the name to the victim, the Defendant took relief measures as stipulated in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident) is illegal.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 6 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Judgment of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles on the argument that the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (Dok-in Vehicle) also argued the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above argument in detail. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, this part of the Defendant’s argument is justifiable, and the purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles that occur on the road, and it does not aim at restoring damage to the victim.

In such cases, measures to be taken by a driver shall be taken appropriately according to the specific circumstances, such as the details of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures means measures to the extent normally required in light of sound forms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do787 delivered on May 14, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant tried to turn to the left or to the left turn after drinking.