logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.08.16 2016노1013
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the facts and the misapprehension of legal principles, the court below acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the act of taking measures after the accident), although the defendant did not take any measures despite being aware of the fact of the accident in this case and could find the fact of leaving the site, there is an error

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the suspension of the execution of six months of imprisonment with prison labor, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the suspension of the operation of compliance 40 hours) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “If a person is killed or injured or goods are damaged due to the traffic of a vehicle, such as driving of the vehicle, etc., the driver or other crew of the vehicle shall immediately stop the vehicle and take necessary measures, such as providing assistance to casualties, and take necessary measures, such as providing the victim with personal information, including his/her name, telephone number, address, etc.”

The purpose of these regulations is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on roads, thereby securing safe and smooth traffic, and it does not aim at restoring damage to victims.

In such a case, measures to be taken by a driver shall be taken appropriately according to the specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and degree of damage, and the degree of such measures means measures to the extent ordinarily required in light of a sound form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do787, May 14, 2009). Where a driver who has caused a traffic accident drives a vehicle immediately after the accident without notifying his/her personal information or contact details despite his/her control, and leaves the site without notifying the victim of such personal information or contact details, the driver shall not only drive the above escape, but also drive the vehicle in question, if he/she leaves the site after the accident.

arrow