특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In regard to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (recognization or misunderstanding of legal principles), the Defendant was unable to comply with the alcohol measurement because, due to the occurrence of the instant accident, the bones was isolated due to the occurrence of the two parts of the instant accident, the breato, or the breath difficulty in drinking, and there was no idea of refusing the alcohol measurement.
The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.
B) With respect to the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury), the Defendant is driving a vehicle without an aggressive driving act in the state of having lost mind due to the shock of the first accident. As such, the Defendant shall be acquitted for the part damaged by the victim G and I due to the second accident. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) against the above victims, erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles (the grounds of appeal in this part are the grounds of appeal asserted after the order to submit legitimate grounds of appeal was
(C) As to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and the crime of injury, the Defendant did not assault the victim from October 22, 2019 to October 24 of the same month.
In addition, around October 25, 2019 and around October 26, 2019, there are assaulting the victim's bridge part on the victim's bridge, but there is no fact that the victim's face and chest are taken on the above date.
In the case of injury, such as plebathing, cageing, and floor cutting, etc., suffered by the victim, it was caused by the harmful acts of AD and V, and there is no causal relation with the act of violence of the defendant.
The judgment of the court below which found the whole of the facts charged is erroneous or erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.
2) Each sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable. B. Prosecutor (2020No845 case) 1.