logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.12.13 2018노1024
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles [the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)] The accident in the instant case did not vary to the extent that the victim F is required to take relief measures for others. The Defendant, in direct dialogue with the victim at the scene of the accident, check the victim’s condition, leaving the vehicle number as a photograph after leaving the scene, and leaving the scene, does not constitute “a case where the victim was injured by a traffic accident but escaped without taking relief measures or providing personal information.”

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (7 million won) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, at the lower court, made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the judgment on the above assertion under the title “Determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”.

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the first instance, the judgment of the court below is justified.

(1) Annoying person, to the extent that it cannot be evaluated as an injury provided for in Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, merely risks to life or body, or annoying person, as it does not require treatment as an upper state, thereby infringing on health conditions.

In cases where it is difficult to see, the crime of escape was not established (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3078, Oct. 9, 2008). A witness F was provided with physical treatment at the court of the trial at the time of the instant accident at the time of the instant accident at the hospital for about 10 days due to the inconvenience from the aftermathing to the hospital.

In light of the fact that “a statement” was made, the victim suffered.

arrow