beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
With regard to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles), the victim consistently stated that the traffic accident occurred, and according to the results of the appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, even if there was contact between the damaged vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, the lower court acquitted the Defendant as to this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
The lower court found guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced not guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (on the part of the accident) and appealed by the prosecutor only from the violation of the Road Traffic Act (on the part of the measures that were not taken after the accident). As such, the part of the lower judgment regarding the violation of the Road Traffic Act (on the part of the
Therefore, the subject of this court's judgment is limited to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed measures after accidents) among the judgment below.
Judgment
As the court below specifically explained, in full view of the following facts: ① the victim himself did not recognize that there was a conflict between the defendant’s vehicle and the damaged vehicle; ② the fact that there was a contact between the damaged vehicle and the defendant’s vehicle in the report at the request of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, or that E, which conducted the above appraisal, testified in the court of the court below to the effect that “it is difficult to conflict between the damaged vehicle and the defendant’s behind the damaged vehicle in the movement situation such as the actual condition report, and the result of the above appraisal; ③ the defendant consistently stated that the damaged vehicle and the damaged vehicle are the same as the vehicle of the defendant’s vehicle are not in conflict since the investigation was conducted by the investigative agency.”
or if the defendant.