특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts merely left the scene without recognizing the occurrence of the instant accident itself, and it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional escape of the Defendant. (2) At the time of misunderstanding of legal principles, the victim was healthy to the extent that he could have done so immediately after the occurrence of the accident, and the accident did not have been scattered on the road due to the accident, so it cannot be deemed that there was a need to take measures such as relief for the victim under Article 54(1)
3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
A. The court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant's testimony in investigation agencies and court of the court below that the victim following the defendant's vehicle following the accident "I see about about the accident's accident's knowing about the accident's accident's accident's credibility is acknowledged, although the victim's physical damage caused by the accident's accident's accident is minor, and the wave was not scattered on the road, the defendant's left-hand turn without getting off the vehicle without getting off the vehicle, and the defendant's left-hand turn at the road's response to the accident's defect in the management of the accident's accident by stopping at the middle of the road, and the escape without leaving the site can not be deemed to have been
B. 1) In full view of the following circumstances, the court below’s determination as to whether the Defendant was aware of the occurrence of the accident, and comprehensively taking account of the various evidences duly admitted and examined by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant left the site even though the Defendant was aware of the occurrence of the accident of this case. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.