(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.15 2015노426

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.15 2015노426

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치사상)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was drunk and was in a state of mental disability.

B. The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides, “The provisions of the preceding two paragraphs shall not apply to any act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a mental disorder by a person,” and this provision provides that “The act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a mental disorder by a person, shall not be applicable to the act of a person who caused a mental disorder by negligence, including not only an intentional act in the cause but also an act in the cause by negligence, and thus, even if it was possible to anticipate the occurrence of danger, it shall be applicable to the case where the occurrence of danger was caused by a person’s mental disorder. Thus, if the defendant caused a traffic accident by drinking while driving a drunk with the intention to drive a drunk, even if the defendant predicted the risk of causing a traffic accident by a person’s mental disorder

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3252 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.). In light of the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the background leading up to the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior, etc. recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, etc., the Defendant may be deemed to have predicted the risk of causing each of the instant crimes by driving under the influence of alcohol at the time, and may not be deemed to have caused a mental and physical disorder resulting from a mental disorder.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant, even though he was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the blood alcohol content exceeds 0.236%, led to the instant crime by driving a motor vehicle, driving the motor vehicle again after the first accident and driving the motor vehicle again, and resulting in the second accident.

참조조문

-형법 제10조 제3항

유사 판례

-대법원 1992. 7. 28. 선고 92도999 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.02 2015노453

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.02 2015노507

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.13 2015노2348

-광주지방법원 2020.05.07 2020노186