beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On November 13, 2017, at around 15:42, the Defendant: (a) driven a B B B B Poter; (b) proceeded ahead of the D Poter C in the Heung-gu E Hospital in the direction of the E Hospital with a three-lane distance of death and death; and (c) changed the course into a two-lane.
In this case, the defendant engaged in driving of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to accurately operate the steering gear and brake system of the motor vehicle and to safely drive the motor vehicle with the duty of care to prevent accidents by safely driving the front and rear left.
Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent in the course of business not negligent in neglecting the front and rear left-down and not operating the steering gear and brakes properly, and the part adjacent to the left side of the passenger car of the Victim F (F (FF) driving 53 years old) who was driving two-lanes of the steering of the Gtosa car was shocked by the right side of the cargo vehicle, resulting in an injury to the victim, such as the light salt, tension, etc. in need of approximately two weeks of medical treatment, and at the same time, escaped without taking necessary measures, such as making a stop to cause KRW 549,238 of the repair cost, and providing the victim with personal information.
B. Defendant’s grounds for appeal (1) misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unnecessary measures) and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not recognize the occurrence of the instant traffic accident.
In addition, in light of the fact that the instant traffic accident did not fall into the width or scattering of vehicles on the road, and did not cause any traffic danger and obstacle, it should be deemed that there was no need to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act at the time, or that the Defendant took necessary measures.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this part is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) Unreasonable sentencing.