logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.12.06 2018노910
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치상)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court, which sentenced the Defendant to both imprisonment and fine, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the judgment on the number of crimes, even though the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) by misapprehending the legal doctrine, constitutes an ordinary concurrent relationship between the crime of driving on roads and the crime of driving on roads.

2) The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the order to attend a lecture 40 hours, the community service 80 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) 1) The degree of injury suffered by the victim due to the instant traffic accident cannot be assessed as “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, because the degree of injury is very insignificant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misapprehending the facts and legal doctrine.

2) The lower court, which sentenced the Defendant to both imprisonment with prison labor and a fine, was erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine on the judgment on the number of crimes, even though the crime of violating the Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) in the instant case constitutes a concurrent relation between the road traffic act and the ordinary concurrent relation.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to prosecutor's misapprehension of the legal principles and defendant's judgment on the number of crimes, the court below convicted the defendant who was prosecuted for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, violation of the Road Traffic Act, and violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licenseed driving), and violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licenseed driving), and convicted him of all the charges of this case. The crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act and violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licenseed driving) shall be punished as ordinary concurrent crimes. The result and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury to Driving) shall be punished as substantive concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor by applying Article 38 (1) 2 and 3 of the Criminal Act.

arrow