logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.07.17 2019노1176
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant traffic accident, the Defendant, due to mistake of facts, suffered injury that the victim H sustained for about three weeks, and did not take necessary measures, such as dealing with the accident, despite the fact that the victim K’s passenger car was damaged to have an amount equivalent to KRW 1,090,758, the Defendant did not leave the scene of the crime of escape.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant's intention of escape is not recognized, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts.

B. In addition, the lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the circumstances revealed by the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the defendant and the victim immediately after the traffic accident of this case were made in the car and the defendant proposed to reach an agreement with the victim. ② The victim was a male aged 39 years old at the time, and was in the situation to communicate with the defendant and communicate with the defendant, ③ the victim was required to report to the police, and the defendant contacted with the parent and the insurance company, and the defendant left the scene after the victim's parents went away from the scene of the accident without leaving the scene of the accident. ④ The defendant seems to go away from the site of the accident for a tobacco fraud. ⑤ The defendant knew that he was born by the victim's mother or left tobacco without walking or leaving the scene, and returned to the scene in response to the direction of the police assigned at the tobacco shop and responded to drinking measurement, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone is difficult to deem that the defendant was proven without any reasonable doubt that the accident scene of the escape.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

arrow