beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant, after the occurrence of an accident, proposed to move the victim to the hospital at the vehicle immediately after the occurrence of the accident, but the victim refused to do so, and immediately arrived at the 119 emergency vehicle without informing the victim of contact information, and went away from the vehicle, but went away due to traffic congestion.
In light of the above circumstances, although the defendant did not have a criminal intent to escape, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.
B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of factual misunderstandings, etc. 1) The lower court, based on its legal reasoning as indicated in its reasoning, comprehensively based on the adopted evidence, recognized the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and based on the above facts, found the following facts: (a) in the situation where the Defendant was refusing to request the victim to leave the ambulances and to board the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant did not take such measures despite sufficient time to inform the victim of his/her personal information from immediately after the accident to the time the victim was on board the ambulances; (b) the Defendant was driving a vehicle to drive the vehicle while driving the vehicle, but, by traffic congestion, was placed.
However, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not do so even if he could easily confirm the hospital that would have been sent to the victim by asking the first-aid service crew members or communicating again to 119, and later he drinks with G after he was a passenger, it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s above statement as it is. ③ The Defendant called the E-cafeteria located adjacent to the accident site during the foregoing drinking, and the Defendant called the Defendant to the E-cafeteria, which was called the police officer at the scene of the accident.