beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misapprehension of legal principles, unreasonable sentencing) is that the defendant was negligent in the accident of this case, or did not think that the accident occurred after the accident of this case (in fact-finding, even though it was aware that the accident occurred after the accident of this case, it was not thought that the accident occurred due to his own vehicle). The punishment (in August and 2 years of suspended sentence) imposed by the court below
2. Determination
A. According to the circumstances described in the reasoning of the judgment of mistake of facts, even if the cargo vehicle of the defendant was prior to the speed of the access road, in light of the fact that the damaged vehicle driven by the left side at almost the edge part of the road (in the middle of the speed section, it was indicated in the middle of the speed section) did not turn on the left side direction direction, etc., and that the vehicle was changed under low speed, it is recognized that the defendant violated the duty of care in the joint road (the defendant, who is driving a large truck under low speed, should have tried to turn on the left side direction with sufficient time on the access road and have tried to enter the road). Even though the defendant knew of the fact that the accident occurred, even though he was aware of the fact that there was a big accident, the cargo vehicle of the defendant was the right side of the place where the damaged vehicle stopped after the accident.
In light of the fact of continuous driving by avoiding the road right edge, it seems that the defendant was able to have been aware of the fact that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the defendant, but did not immediately stop the vehicle and deal with the accident. Therefore, it is difficult to view the judgment of the court below which found the guilty as erroneous or erroneous application of the legal principles of the escape vehicle.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.