beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant could not be aware of the contact accident, and the victim’s injury did not need relief measures, and thus, the Defendant did not constitute a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (domination).
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (7 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts (1) In light of the legislative purport and protection legal interests and interests, etc. of Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the need to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting actual victims of the accident, in light of the following: (a) the details and content of the accident; (b) the victim’s age and degree of injury; and (c)
If it is not recognized, the driver of the accident shall not take measures, such as aiding the victim, but leave the place of the accident.
Although the necessity of measures to be taken at the time of the occurrence of an accident does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the above Act, the determination shall be made by taking into account the injury of the victim, the details and degree of the accident, the circumstances after the accident, the starting time, circumstances, period and contents of the treatment, the age and health conditions of the victim, etc. However, in the case of the large case, it may be determined that the defendant would not give the victim an opportunity to make a pain statement by directly communicating with the victim, or that the defendant would not have a need to take relief measures to check the condition of the victim by stopping at least, and if not, there was no need for relief measures.
It should not be easily determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do6710, Jan. 14, 2016). (2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the victim, on the date of the instant accident.