beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, while drinking alcohol on the new wall in a fluened manner, was sleeped, but did not think that the Defendant was only a person who thought of the vehicle, but did not think that the Defendant was a person who thought of the vehicle. For that reason, the Defendant continued the vehicle as it is and returned to home.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, even though the defendant's intention to escape is not recognized, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts,
B. When taking into account various circumstances on the accused of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The "the time when the driver runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as aiding the victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" refers to the case where the driver of the accident, even though he knew of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, causes the situation where the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed. The degree of awareness of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident in this context is not definitely definite but does not necessarily require confirmation, and if the driver of the accident had escaped from the accident site even though he could have easily confirmed the fact of the accident if he had been directly checked immediately after the accident, even though he had not taken such measures, the driver of the accident had the intention to escape with the knowledge of the occurrence of
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do5023, Mar. 28, 2000). As to the instant case, health class and health class.