Residence

Reference domicile

All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

The sentence of the court below (the fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the defendant was the first offender, and that the victim paid medical expenses of KRW 500,000 to the victim.

B. The Defendant is obliged to reduce a fine due to the Defendant’s fault when the Victim was her, and thus, the fine should be reduced.

However, even if it is true that the victim was out of the opening, in light of the following circumstances:

Considering that the negligence of the defendant is very large, and that the victim is not negligent.

1) Even if the Defendant asked a person on February 2, 2014, the Defendant neglected to take measures, such as putting the neck over, or putting the neck over, the dog. However, the Defendant caused the instant accident.

2) The opening of the defendant is not only the fact that he asked the previous person, but also the body of the defendant to the extent that he can be injured by the defendant as shown in the following photographs.

A person shall be appointed.

3) The place where the instant accident occurred is the front of the victim’s house. This is because the Defendant keyed into the victim’s house.

4) The Defendant’s statement of the police on the victim and witness B on the ground that the victim was dead.

The protocol is presented. According to this, the reason why the victim opens the body is that the opening attempts to ask the victim's wife (see the Reasons for Appeal No. 25 and No. 29, submitted by the defendant).

C. As above, the Defendant’s negligence in the occurrence of the instant accident is very large while there is no negligence on the part of the victim; the victim was seriously injured; the Defendant did not agree with the victim; and the Defendant did not properly recover from damage; and the Defendant’s age, details of the crime, and the crime after committing the crime.

Comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, even if considering the favorable circumstances for the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is not reasonable, and the burden of litigation costs shall be applied to Articles 191 (1), 190 (1), and the main sentence of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Jong-chul

Judges Hak-chan