[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)][하집1990(3),397]
The case holding that the accident driver's transfer from the place of accident to abandon the victim and does not constitute a case of escape.
After the accident occurred, the accident driver had the victim on the road, who had the hospital aboard, and had the hospital at the time of the accident, but did not find a hospital near the site and continued operation without finding any other hospital near the site, and is not deemed to have suffered a large amount of injury at the point 15 kilometers away from the accident site due to the victim's multiple times request, and as a result, the accident driver cannot be deemed to constitute a case where the accident driver moved the victim from the accident site to the accident site and abandons the victim from the accident site, if the victim escaped without leaving the hospital at the victim's request.
Article 5-3 of the Specific Crimes
Defendant
Defendant
Original Branch Court of Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (90,000 Gohap17,00)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
The number of detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is as follows: First, the traffic accident in this case occurred only by the whole negligence of the victim who passed the road without permission without examining the movement of the vehicle that is coming from the accident, and it was inevitable for the defendant to drive the vehicle at night with a limited range of night, but it is erroneous in the court below's determination that the defendant was negligent in neglecting his duty of care as a driver in the occurrence of the accident in this case by misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment; second, the defendant was carrying the victim on the vehicle after the occurrence of the accident in this case; second, the defendant was going to the hospital after the arrival of the accident in this case; second, it was hard to find the hospital where the victim can be treated under the influence of the accident after the accident in this case; third, the defendant did not have any error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the defendant's act of leaving the vehicle in this case or misunderstanding the facts against the defendant; third, the court below's decision did not contain any error.
2. First of all, according to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is sufficient to find the fact that the defendant's operation of the road in commercial areas where pedestrians' passage is anticipated at all times, such as the time of the original trial, neglected the duty of front-time navigation, and did not go to the right side of the road, and caused the accident in this case to occur, due to the fact that the victim non-indicted 1 (the 18-year old-old-age-old-age-old-in-age-in-age-in-fact was found later, and the defendant did not go to the right side of the road, and there is no error of law in the misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules
3. We examine the second ground for appeal.
Article 5-3(1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act provides that when the driver of an accident who committed a crime under Article 268 of the Aggravated Punishment Act runs away without taking measures under Article 50(1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, such as immediately stopping the accident and providing assistance to casualties, the driver shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than five years in cases where the victim died or is dead or the victim dies after the escape; 2. Furthermore, Article 5-3(2) of the Aggravated Punishment Act provides that the driver of an accident shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year in cases where the victim escaped after moving the victim from the accident place where the victim died or the victim died after the escape; 3.0 years in cases where the victim died or the victim died after the escape; 2.0 years in cases where the victim was injured, it is reasonable to interpret Article 5-3(1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act that the driver of an accident is not subject to any restriction on the possibility of dumping the victim's crime under Article 5-3(2) of the Aggravated Punishment Act.
According to the evidence duly adopted by the court below in this case, the defendant did not take any measures to remove the victim from the hospital of this case to the hospital of this case after driving the fire insurance for the 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth 1990 (vehicle number omitted) at around 18:35, and the defendant did not take any measures to remove the victim from the hospital of this case to the hospital of this case with the first eth son eth eth eth eth eth son eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth.).
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the remaining grounds for appeal due to erroneous determination of facts or misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 5-3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the remaining grounds for appeal due to the grounds for appeal pointing this out. It
4. The gist of the facts constituting an offense and the evidence admitted by a party member is as of the time of original inquiry except for: (a) the portion of the facts constituting an offense at the end of the original inquiry, “absing the victim, leaving him/her away, and changing to “absing” without taking relief measures; and (b) the same applies to “absing.”
Application of Acts and Subordinate Statutes
The defendant's act of judgment falls under Article 5-3 (1) 1 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 50 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, the defendant selected a limited term of imprisonment, and committed the remaining crime of this case committed after the accident as the first offender, and there is a reason to take into account the circumstances, such as the fact that the error is repented in depth and the victim's bereaved family members are compensated and agreed to compensate for damages, etc. As such, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and six months within the term of punishment, and 80 days from the number of detention days before the sentence of the judgment of the court below is included in the above punishment under Article 57 of the Criminal Act.
Parts of innocence
The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the defendant caused a traffic accident, such as the statement of the facts charged in the above facts charged, and then abandons the victim in front of the new village council located in Taeju-dong, Taeju-dong, and escape from the scene, and then, at around 23:55 on February 21, 1990, caused the victim's death by a scarcity shock, etc., and the prosecutor seeks the application and punishment of Article 5-3 (2) 1 of the Aggravated Punishment Act. As seen in the judgment on the grounds of appeal in the above facts charged of this case, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of the crime, but it shall not be sentenced separately from the order of acquittal, so long as the defendant is found guilty of the facts charged of Article 5-3 (1) 1 of the Aggravated Punishment Act as stated in the judgment on the grounds of appeal.
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.
Judges Jeong Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)