logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.05.17 2017노1711
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victim's body and the body of the victim were in contact with the defendant's vehicle, and there was no intention to escape from the scene because the victim had been in contact with the victim's body and even if the victim was faced with the victim, the victim did not know about the part of the victim, and even if the victim did not receive medical treatment, it does not constitute injury as it is possible for the victim to recover even if he did not receive medical treatment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by mistake of facts.

2. According to the evidence of this case, including the response to an order to submit documents on CCTV images examined in the judgment of the court below and in the trial of the party, and on L (C) for the deliberation of the party, the defendant, while driving a vehicle, was unable to make an internship at one time, was shocked on the left side and the body part of the victim walking along the back part of the vehicle while driving the vehicle, and the defendant did not notify the victim of his personal information while driving the vehicle and driving the vehicle without notifying the victim of his personal information, and the victim reported the escape vehicle to the investigation agency on the day, and was diagnosed on the left side in the hospital with the left-hand spons, sponsed and sponsed on the left-hand spons, and received treatment at the hospital every day except on a four-day Sundays.

In addition to these circumstances, there was an accident where a person gets off the vehicle, and the victim did not see the speed of the vehicle at the time.

the Commission.

The victim is not required to take relief measures even if the defendant's assertion is made.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant was not actively expressed, but rather rather than the direction that had originally been carried by the U.S., left the site in the direction that the vehicle was facing, the Defendant suffered the injury of the victim due to the foregoing traffic accident.

It is recognized that this accident is recognized and the defendant has left the scene without taking any measures.

arrow