beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle) was driving along a commercial side at the time of the accident in this case, and the defendant was fluorily shocked to the front part of the victim E with the vehicle's left end, and the defendant 2, 3 minutes of the vehicle stopped, 3 minutes of the vehicle immediately after the victim was faced with the front part of the vehicle, but did not answer, and the defendant 2, 3 minutes of the vehicle, 3 minutes of the vehicle, and 4 minutes of the vehicle. The victim went to the hospital after 2 days of the accident, and the victim was extremely getting annoyed because of no particular treatment. In light of the above, there was no need to take measures such as aiding the victim at the time of the accident in this case, and even if the defendant had no intention to escape, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. As to the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the above assertion on the ground that the defendant had an intention to flee with the knowledge of the occurrence of the accident even if the defendant had failed to do so, under the title "the judgment on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel" in the judgment of the court below, the defendant alleged the same as the grounds for appeal of this case.
Examining the judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the evidential materials, the judgment is justified.
1) The victim was faced with the left side bridge on the front part of the vehicle driving by the Defendant, and the victim did not immediately occur immediately. 2) The victim was a minor student at the time of the instant accident and continued to look at his body after the accident, and thus, it is difficult to deem that emergency measures were not necessary at the time immediately after the accident, and that it was objective and clear at the time immediately after the accident.
3 In this case, if the defendant would have been directly checked from the vehicle.