It is illegal to have been punished as a single crime, including a crime in a commercial concurrent relationship.

In the event that several persons were killed due to a traffic accident, one act is related to the ordinary concurrent crimes under Article 40 of the so-called Criminal Code, which constitutes several crimes, so the court below's decision that the defendant's case constitutes one crime by combining so-called "the defendant's case" shall have influenced the judgment in violation of the law.

Article 40 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Busan District Court (81 High Court Decision 284)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

One hundred days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above sentence.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the punishment of the court below is unfair, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: first, the defendant was in accordance with relief measures that the defendant had been able to send victims to the hospital after the accident occurred after the accident occurred, such as setting up a taxi that is only for the purpose of sending victims to the hospital; second, the court below did not take relief measures, and affected the judgment by misunderstanding that the defendant escaped; second, the defendant was erroneous that the defendant reported the defendant's accident to the police office within 24 hours after the occurrence of the traffic accident, and reported the defendant's accident to the police office within 24 hours after the occurrence of the traffic accident; second, the defendant reported the defendant's accident to the police office within the 24 hours after the occurrence of the accident; second, the defendant's mistake is a person who was unfasible; third, the defendant's case constitutes a mistake of law;

In light of the records, if the evidence duly adopted by the court below is reviewed in comparison with the records, it is sufficient to acknowledge the crime at the time of original adjudication, and there is no evidence to see that the court below erred in its fact-finding, and even if the records were recorded, it cannot be deemed that the so-called "the mistake of law" of this case constitutes a mistake of law. Thus, all of the arguments of mistake of law or legal mistake are groundless.

Before determining on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by the prosecutor and the defendant, this case constitutes several crimes, and these several crimes constitute the ordinary concurrent crimes under Article 40 of the Criminal Act. However, the court below recognized that the defendant's dual-purpose constitutes one crime, and the court below erred by violating the law, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

The criminal facts recognized as a member and the evidence relations are the same as those of the court below, and they are quoted as they are.

The court below's judgment falls under Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 268 of the Criminal Act. Since the above several crimes correspond to several crimes, it refers to punishment prescribed for the crime against the non-indicted who has rendered a heavier judgment in accordance with Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act. The defendant is a repeated crime. Thus, according to Article 35 of the Criminal Act, a repeated crime is committed within the limit of the proviso of Article 42 of the same Act. The defendant reports a police vehicle coming to the scene immediately after the traffic accident occurred, and the defendant has been abandoned while giving up rescue and relief. Since there are grounds to consider that the above crimes constitute several crimes, the above crimes correspond to several crimes, the crime refers to punishment for the crime and the crime committed more severe. Thus, the court below's judgment shall be included in the punishment under Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the same Act within the maximum of 10 days of imprisonment, and the defendant shall be included in the punishment under Article 105 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Ahn Yong-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)