beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecution as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act against the victim B and C among the facts charged in the instant case, and rendered a judgment of conviction as to the remaining facts charged.
[Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) to Victims G who committed a crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, etc., the court below erred in ordering separate dismissal of prosecution against each of the above victims since the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents against Victims B and C was committed in a mutually competitive relationship with each of the above victims. However, even if the court below erred in assessing the number of crimes as above, the court below did not err in selecting imprisonment without prison labor more punishment than the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents to Victims G who committed a crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. As such, the court below did not reverse the judgment of the court below on this ground because it cannot be deemed that such error affected the judgment, and therefore, it did not reverse the judgment of the court below on this ground (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do762, Apr. 9, 2004).
Therefore, the scope of the judgment of the court below is limited to the guilty portion of the judgment below, and the dismissal of the above public prosecution shall be subject to the conclusion of the judgment below, and it shall not be judged separately in the trial.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (including six months of imprisonment without prison labor, one year of suspended execution, one year of probation order, and 40 hours of an order to attend a compliance driving lecture) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
3...