도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the violation of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act) and the Defendant took all measures after the accident, such as confirming whether the victim E had the victim E come to the side, immediately after the accident in this case. The Defendant suffered from ordinary high blood pressure and urology. The patient suffered from ordinary high-tension and urology, but only left the site by finding public telephones in order to go to the hospital immediately before the shock of the accident, and not leaving the site without permission. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the non-measures after the accident was erroneous. (2) The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the non-measures after the accident was erroneous. (2) The punishment (the fine of KRW 2 million) by the court below is too unreasonable
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the blood alcohol concentration in this case is driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol of 0.058%.
Defendant
The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of legal principles, although the blood alcohol concentration was calculated most favorable to the defendant.
2. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant, at the Daegu District Court on May 2, 2014, was sentenced to a suspension of the execution of six months of imprisonment for a crime of perjury, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 10, 2014.
As the crime of this case is related to the crime subject to the above final judgment and the latter concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment of this case shall be determined after considering equity and mitigation or exemption of punishment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.
In this respect, the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.
Despite these reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is below.