logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.12.10 2015노3037
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) victims of traffic accidents as stated in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter “the instant accident”) did not have any special external wounds to the extent that they could have been sent to the hospital, and thus, there was no need to treat them as an injury. Therefore, it was difficult for the Defendant to recognize them.

In addition, immediately after the accident of this case, the defendant ordered the victims to confirm their status by ordering them to observe the order of the victims, and Qua, who was towed at the scene of the accident of this case, was ordered to order the defendant, and left the scene after receiving the insurance and requesting the handling of the accident. Therefore, there was no intention to commit a crime of neglecting the duty of relief to the victims and escaping from the scene.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established is erroneous in matters of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles that affected the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “when a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim,” as prescribed by Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to a situation in which it is impossible for the driver of an accident to determine who caused the accident to leave the scene before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she knew that the victim was killed due to an accident.

Therefore, in order to establish the above crime of escape driving, the result of thought should arise to the victim, and annoying person, which cannot be assessed as “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, should be deemed to have infringed on the health condition due to the mere risk to life or body of the victim.

arrow