logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.03.21 2017노4420
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) The injury inflicted on the victim due to the instant accident does not constitute a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (i.e., escape vehicles) since it is not necessary to treat the victim as a minor injury in light of the victim’s symptoms, the treatment process and progress.

② In addition, immediately after the instant accident, the Defendant was able to easily identify the Defendant’s personal information because his body was not good due to the instant accident, and the Defendant was able to call to his mother to take care of the accident scene, and the Defendant was able to easily identify the Defendant’s personal information because not only the Defendant did not differ separately, but also the Defendant’s contact details in front of his automobile and in his car, and the Defendant was thought to have had an intention to escape, on the ground that his mother was able to handle the accident along with the Defendant’s assignment.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a punishment of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, the determination of the assertion that the injured party does not constitute a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) and the judgment of the court below and the court below and the court of first instance can be comprehensively admitted by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, it is difficult to view that the injured party’s injury cannot be evaluated as “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act as a standing position to the extent that it is not necessary to treat it, and therefore, this part of the defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① On April 1, 2017, the day following the instant accident, the victim was diagnosed as “scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics and tensions”

② The instant accident is a passenger car driven by the Defendant at the front section.

arrow