logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.23 2016노683
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
Text

All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and Sentencing) (1) was unable to feel shock at the time of the instant accident, and the Defendant heard shock at the later time, but the victim F was driving beyond the opposite line, and the victim was aware that other vehicles (tested) and accidents operating the opposite line were occurred, and thus, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to escape.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

(2) The lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 3 million) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is recognized as having escaped from the scene of an accident without notifying F of whom the person who caused the accident was aware of who caused the accident, without taking relief measures, etc. despite having inflicted an injury on F by causing a traffic accident. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of

(1) The defendant driving a sea-going vehicle and driving a two-lane between the four-lanes in one way, while changing the course into one another, and driving a one-lane in the same direction as the rear side of the left side.

By shocking the front part of the F driver's Obama, the Obama had it go beyond the opposite one lane.

F was unable to memory immediately before and after the accident, except the shock fact with the damaged vehicle, as it lost the mind at the time of the accident in this case.

② The Defendant: (a) stopped the shock immediately after changing the course; (b) confirmed that the shock was in excess of the earth and rocks, but (c) re-driving the vehicle and leaving the site.

c)an accident;

arrow