beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The traffic accident in this case of mistake of facts is only a minor contact accident, and the victims did not suffer any injury to the extent that it is necessary to take relief measures, and the defendant also left the scene without recognizing the need to take relief measures against the victims, and there was no intention to commit an escape and a crime of escape.
B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of 6 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged was around 05:20 on January 1, 2013, the Defendant driving a DSS5 car, leading the road in front of the Seo-dong Office, Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, to the northwest of the Dongjak-dong Office, leading to about 20 km each other at a speed of about 20 km from the northwest of the Yongsan-gu, Seoul.
At the time, since a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle was at night and under snow, he/she had a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle by taking into account the front side and the left side of the motor vehicle. The defendant neglected to do so, while driving the motor vehicle as it was, the victim E, who was under stopping in front of the course, was driving the motor vehicle in front of the said SM5 vehicle, and was driving the motor vehicle in front of the said SM5 vehicle, and was driving the motor vehicle in front of the said SM5 vehicle. The victim E, who got injured by the victim E for about two weeks of medical treatment, such as light oil and drilling, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, suffered injury, such as light oil and drilling, and at the same time, he/she did not take measures such as aiding the victim by immediately stopping the motor vehicle in front of the said SM5 vehicle.
B. The lower court’s determination is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the lower court, namely, that the time for the new wall that occurred at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident, and due to the accident.