logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.16 2015노1925
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the accident of mistake of facts, the Defendant was not aware of the victim’s injury at all, did not have the duty to take relief measures at the time of the accident in light of the victim’s behavior, etc., and there was no intention to escape

In other words, at the time of the accident, the victim did not mention the necessity of the hospital treatment, etc., and the degree of injury was insignificant by issuing a medical certificate as a need for three days after the accident, and there was no need for separate relief measures.

In addition, the defendant's leaving the scene was moving to a hospital for emergency measures due to the injury of snow level, and it was possible to specify the defendant due to the relationship between the shop and the neighboring merchants. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had an intention to escape.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter referred to as a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, etc.” refers to cases where the driver of an accident, despite his knowledge of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, causes una final and conclusive state of who caused the accident.

Therefore, in order to establish the above crime of escape driving, the result of thought should arise to the victim, and annoying person, which cannot be assessed as "injury" as stipulated in Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, should be treated as a superior situation, and thus, there is no need for treatment.

arrow