logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.10.25 2018노343
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) and the following circumstances: (i) At the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, drivers, including victims E, who stopped from the vehicle behind the Defendant’s driver’s cargo vehicle, have been able to walked several times; (ii) the victim E, after the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, has been able to walk a considerable length of skid mark at the scene of the accident; and (iii) the victim E, after the occurrence of the accident, was flu

In addition, in light of the fact that a witness G and the defendant made a statement to the effect that he/she was proceeding despite having considered his/her windows and back again, the defendant escaped without taking necessary measures even though he/she was aware that a traffic accident occurred.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the remaining crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the main sentence), and acquitted verdict on the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (the measures not yet taken after the accident). The court below rendered a judgment dismissing public prosecution against the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value, which could lead a judge to feel true enough to have a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, even if there is no suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the conviction cannot be rendered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). (b) In light of the above legal principles, the defendant returned to the instant case, and examined the case, and the lower court took place from the second to the third to the third to the second to the third to the second to the judgment, on account of the circumstances as seen above.

arrow