logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.10.20 2017노722
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: The facts charged in this case is that the front wheels of the driver's vehicle of the defendant has suffered the injury of the victim's left-hand knife, by focusing on the growth of the victim.

However, according to relevant evidence, the victim's injury is not caused by the act of the defendant, but rather caused by the victim's own car.

Furthermore, since the injured party's wife is very insignificant, it cannot be viewed as "injury" as stipulated in Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant was driving around approximately 20km at a low speed, and the victim went beyond the central line to avoid breaking the crosswalk. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant did not err by violating the duty of care for neglect in the front direction.

Even if the victim suffered injury due to the accident of this case,

Even if it is difficult for the defendant to recognize it, so it cannot be concluded that the defendant goes off the scene without taking any relief measures despite recognizing the necessity of relief to the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. 1) Whether the occurrence of an injury caused by a traffic accident occurred or not, the first collision between the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle and the victim’s first part is indicated in the traffic accident report (1, 2) and the “after the right side of the vehicle” after the occurrence of the traffic accident after the instant accident. The Defendant, based on this, asserts that the wheels of the Defendant’s vehicle was faced with the Defendant’s vehicle rather than the victim’s growth, etc., but the victim was faced with the Defendant’s own vehicle.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following is acknowledged.

arrow