logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.07.23 2014노2825
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) was that the Defendant immediately stopped after the instant accident, checked the victim’s condition by leaving the vehicle immediately after the instant accident, and sent the victim to the hospital by reporting it to 119, and notified the 119 first responders dispatched at the time of the instant accident of the mobile phone numbers of the Defendant.

However, although the defendant did not state that he was the perpetrator of the instant accident, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of the instant facts charged in the absence of the criminal intent to escape because the victim did not think that he was about having a different relation to the Defendant's driving vehicle.

2. The phrase "when the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the law related to judgment" refers to a case where the driver of an accident deserts the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she knew of the fact that the victim was injured by the accident, resulting in a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do250, Mar. 12, 2004). Here, the degree of awareness of the fact that the victim was killed by the accident is sufficient if the victim knew of the fact that he/she was killed by the accident, and on the other hand, if he/she escaped from the accident site, he/she is aware of the possibility of escape from the accident site.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13091 Decided April 28, 2011). The Defendant, in the lower court, denied the intent of the criminal intent of the escape when all of the instant crimes were recognized, and the lower court and the lower court are legitimate.

arrow