beta
Text
The judgment below
[2016 High Court Decision 2143] The case portion shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
Defendant.
Reasons
1. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the grounds that the Defendant’s breach of duty of care was not recognized with respect to each of the facts charged in the instant case [2016 High Court Decision 2142], and rendered a not-guilty verdict on the grounds that the part causing bodily injury to escape was not recognized with respect to the remaining facts charged [2016 High Court Decision 2143], and sentenced a fine of three million won only after the accident in relation to the crime.
Accordingly, the prosecutor appealed from the judgment of the court below [2016, 2143, 2016, 2143] The part of the case which the prosecutor did not appeal from the judgment of the court below [2016, 2142] was separated and finalized.
Therefore, the scope of this Court's adjudication is limited to the case portion of the judgment of the court below [2016 Mad 2143].
2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the Prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the victim of the instant case complained of pains for the instant accident, and can be recognized as having received physical treatment. As such, the victim sustained injury under the Criminal Act.
must be viewed.
Nevertheless, the injury is not recognized.
In light of the foregoing, the lower judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the injury resulting from escape is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
3. Determination
A. The lower court determined that, according to the circumstances indicated in its holding, the victim could have suffered partial inconvenience in the case of pains that the victim complained of after the instant accident.
However, the degree of damage to the completeness of the victim's body, has been hindered in the life function, or has changed the health condition in bad condition.
Therefore, it is difficult to see that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was sufficiently proven to the extent that the result of the upper year in the Criminal Code was generated to the victim due to the instant accident.
The defendant not guilty of the injury resulting from escape on the ground that it cannot be seen.