logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.09.10 2019노3309
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The height of dump trucks operated by the Defendant by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles was limited to the ground view by around 3m and about 40m, and there was a situation where it was difficult to recognize a minor contact accident because many aggregates are loaded at the time.

In other words, the defendant did not recognize the occurrence of the accident itself, and there was no motive to escape.

In addition, the injury suffered by the victim cannot be assessed as the "injury" of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as much as natural therapy is possible.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the legislative intent of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) and the legal interest and protection thereof, in a case where it is not deemed necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim, the accident driver does not take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim, and even if leaving the place of the accident, it does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3(1) of the Special Cases Act.

However, whether there was a need to take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and details of the accident, the age and degree of the victim’s injury, and the circumstances after the accident. However, in order to recognize that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act grants a person who caused the accident an emergency responsibility for providing relief to the person who caused the accident, there was no need to take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim, the victim actively expressed that it is unnecessary to take relief measures.

In the event that there is no need to take any other emergency action, at the time immediately after the accident.

arrow