logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.04.29 2014노2298
교통사고처리특례법위반등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of mistake of facts (violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents) did not have a hospital immediately since he worked at night immediately after the instant accident, but was issued a medical certificate to the effect that he visited the hospital on June 1, 2013 that he suffered light crypines requiring medical treatment for about two weeks, and the victim suffered no more than two physical therapy due to the instant traffic accident, but no longer has a hospital, since the insurance treatment was revoked after being conducted no more than two times due to the occurrence of the instant traffic accident. The victim testified at the court of the court of the court below that his body was inconvenient and was under normal conditions due to the shock of the instant traffic accident, and that the victim testified that his vehicle had a shock by going on the delivery while driving the Defendant’s vehicle, taking full account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be sufficiently recognized that the victim suffered the injury due to the instant traffic accident.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of a fine) by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s reasoning on the assertion of mistake of facts and the records of this case: (i) the instant accident was a serious minor accident, even though the Defendant’s vehicle was pushed ahead of the driver’s seat and the side door of the victim’s vehicle which was parked, and resulting therefrom, the damaged vehicle had been flickly flicked into the driver’s seat and side, but the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have not been flicked, and (ii) the victim was transferred to flick the Defendant vehicle immediately after the instant accident.

However, the victim was shocked in the court below's decision in the process of taking over the victim's vehicle.

arrow