beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, there is an error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle (not guilty part) in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the victim C about the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not guilty part).
The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 3 million won) is too unhued and unfair.
Judgment
The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s act was an act of causing, or is likely to cause, a new traffic hazard after an accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that: (a) the Defendant’s act was charged with causing minor physical damage due to shock in the direction of the left-hand side of the driver-hand side of the victim C, which was parked on the road; (b) C was not at the scene of an accident; and (c) even if G, who was the victim of the previous accident, was satisfing the Defendant, even if he stopped the shock on the vehicle, G was at a point less than about 10 meters away from that point; and (b) the Defendant stopped the shock vehicle of the victim C, which was shocked by the victim C.
In addition to the above circumstances revealed by the court below, as long as G was found guilty of violating the Road Traffic Act (unnecessary Measures) in relation to G as the traffic risk and obstacle that occurred while inducing the defendant is caused by the previous accident, it is included in this part. In addition, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, in light of the fact that it is difficult to deem the defendant as a traffic risk and obstacle that occurred due to an accident that shocks the victim C's vehicle.
Although the defendant had a previous conviction on the assertion of unfair sentencing, he had a previous conviction on the same kind of drunk driving and four previous drivers, this case.