beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) The driving of the instant vehicle on or around December 10, 2008 is not Defendant A but Defendant B. Therefore, under the premise that Defendant A driving, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) and the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal, and the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal, and the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal against Defendant B, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 7 million, and a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated in the trial of the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the driving of the instant vehicle on December 10, 2008 can be recognized as Defendant A. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that there was an error of mistake of facts in the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged is rejected.
1) Around 19:25 on December 10, 2008, at the SM3 (D) of the instant case owned by the Defendant B, which was in the atmosphere of the vehicle running by H from the SM3 (2) of the Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong, caused an accident to see the instant Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong (I). He stated in the police that “I and the other driver confirmed the vehicle status after the accident, you confirmed the vehicle status of the vehicle getting out of the vehicle, and confirmed the phone number of the vehicle by posting the handphone on the spot.” On the other hand, H, who had shown the Defendants’ driver’s license, was the Defendant A driver.
H has made the same statement in the court of original instance as above, and as to the reasons why the situation was fully memoryed at the time of the accident for more than four years, the accident history is indispensable for three times from 1997 to the present.
first.