logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.05.25 2017노229
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치사상)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the degree of the instant accident, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and considering the fact that the injured person received physical treatment from the outside of the prison on the day of the accident, the injured person suffered injury due to the instant accident.

It is reasonable to see that it is reasonable.

In addition, since the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death and Injury caused before the risk), it is illegal to not punish it as a minor injury.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (3 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the lower court is difficult to readily conclude that the injury inflicted on the victim of the instant traffic accident is an injury as stipulated in Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, on the ground that it is limited to the extent that it can naturally be cured due to the passage of time without any particular impediment in daily life even if the injury inflicted on the victim was not treated.

The decision was determined.

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record, the above judgment of the court below is sufficiently acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on injury in the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

(1) At the court of the court below, the victim was not frequently free due to the accident of this case, and there was no inconvenience in daily life or work.

was stated.

(2) On the day of the accident, the victim did not receive any additional treatment by going to the hospital in addition to physical therapy after photographing the radioactive rays from the static department.

(3) The victim did not receive a diagnosis on his part and degree of his injury.

The confirmation letter of entrance release issued by the injured party in the above-mentioned outdoor department is nothing more than confirming that the injured party was receiving the outpatient treatment on the day of the instant accident. (4) The above-mentioned outdoor department.

arrow