2006No900 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Evacuation Vehicles)

○○ (○)

Residence

Permanent domicile

Defendant

nan

Ulsan District Court Decision 2006Ma1380 Decided November 23, 2006

March 23, 2007

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

The Defendant, at the time and place of the instant facts charged, did not face the victim’s outer benefit directly, but went beyond the victim’s own care while the victim was friendly with three persons and road, so there was no negligence by the Defendant, and even if the victim was trying to avoid the Defendant’s driving vehicle, the victim passed away the road due to his own negligence, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit a crime of escape because the victim did not know that she was the victim was the victim due to his own negligence, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2).

2. Determination

A. Whether the instant accident occurred due to Defendant’s occupational negligence

According to the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below, since the defendant found the road on the front side while driving a motor vehicle at the location as stated in the facts charged of this case and found the victim's safety even without confirming the victim's safety, the facts charged of this case can be fully acknowledged that the defendant caused a traffic accident causing the victim's injury due to occupational negligence that is going without confirming the victim's safety, the defendant's assertion that there is no negligence of the

B. Whether the defendant had no criminal intent to flee

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant was found guilty of the defendant's criminal intent of escape since it is just for the court below to find the defendant guilty of the charge of this case, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as argued by the defendant in the judgment below, since the defendant was aware that the victim did not directly face the defendant's driver's vehicle, even though the victim was not the victim's vehicle, such as the defendant's assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge

Judges

Judges