(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.11. 선고 2018고합733 판결

On March 19, 2018, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 18:25, and led the road near D in the vicinity of the king intersection. At the time, the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent traffic accidents by accurately manipulating the front line and accurately manipulating the steering gear of the victim E (the age of 35) on the front line of the vehicle at the time, and thus, the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent traffic accidents. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s negligence, which led to the Defendant’s negligence of driving the said ente-learning vehicle, led to the back part of the vehicle in front of the said ente-line.

As a result, the Defendant sustained injury to the victim E, such as scopical scopical scopical scopical scopical scopical scopical scopical scopical scopical scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic s

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. 수사보고(현장임장사진 및 로드뷰캡쳐에 대하여), 수사보고(피해차량사진 및 진료기록부 첨부) 및 첨부서류(증거목록 순번 26부터 29), 수사보고(진료내역 관련 진술청 취) 및 첨부서류(순번 30, 31), 수사보고(사고현장관련 사진 및 동영상 첨부) 및 첨부서류(순번 32, 33) 1. 실황조사서, 교통사고보고, 사고메모, 사고현장사진, 각 진단서

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment prescribed for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Victims E with heavy penalty)

1. Selection of punishment;

Imprisonment Selection

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Suspension of execution;

Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the grounds for sentencing)

1. Summary of the assertion

After the accident, the Defendant was killed by the victims, and was waiting for contact with the insurance company, and the Defendant was frequently employed by the Defendant at ordinary times. At the time of the accident, there was no need for the victims to receive relief, and there was no intention of escape.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

In light of the legislative intent and protected legal interest of the provision on the aggravated punishment of a fugitive driver as prescribed in Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”), in a case where it is not deemed necessary for an accident driver to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as the actual rescue of a victim, even if the accident driver does not take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim, and leaves the place of the accident, it does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3(1) of the Specific Crimes Act. However, whether it was necessary to take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim, etc. should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the situation and contents of the accident, the victim’s age and degree, and the circumstances following the accident. In light of the fact that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act grants emergency control to a person who caused the accident, it is not necessary to take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim, or there was no need to conclude that there was no need to ex post facto the victim’s damage after the accident.

B. Specific determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it cannot be deemed that there was no need to protect victims at the time of the instant accident, and the Defendant’s criminal intent to escape is recognized. Accordingly, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

1) Necessity of the victims’ injury and relief measures

In light of the victim E-learning vehicle which was stopped, the victim E-learning vehicle was shocked behind the stopped vehicle, and in light of the difference between the size of the benz vehicle and the firing vehicle, and the degree of damage to each vehicle), it seems that the shock of the victims due to the accident seems to have been considerable. The victim E stated that the body was within the shock even during the shock, and the victim G stated that the victim G was kneeing in the vehicle and was kneeing so that there was a considerable amount of pain. In addition, the defendant also stated that the knish symptoms had been shown after the shock of the vehicle Hand.

The Defendant stated that he was the deceased (victim E) and that the driver (victim E) would immediately receive value fees from the hospital, and that the Defendant would change the insurance receipt number, or that the Defendant would receive insurance (Evidence No. 59,96 pages) was waiting for a considerable period of time when the victims requested the Defendant to receive insurance (Evidence No. 59,96 pages), but the victims could not be deemed to have actively expressed the need for relief measures against the Defendant on the part of the victim at the time, or that there was no need for other emergency measures. Rather, the situation appears to have been objectively and clearly revealed that the victims expressed the situation that they should go to the hospital because of an accident.

According to the Defendant’s leaving the scene, the victims visited the hospital on March 20, 2018, on the following day without visiting the hospital by the police, such as coming from the scene, and without visiting the hospital on the day, and received X-ray prescription, physical therapy (e.g., making soup, making soup, singinginging, singinginging, singinging, and electricity), and then received physical treatment on March 21, 2018 and March 26-27, 2018, respectively. The victims stated that the pain continued to exceed two to three weeks.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no need to take relief measures due to minor injury suffered by the victims at the time.

2) Whether the Defendant’s cell phone falls under escape and at the time of the Defendant’s intention, the Defendant’s cell phone (H) was in a state of suspending the call due to the unpaid rate of charge, and the Defendant used the Defendant’s cell phone (I) by using the Kakao Stockholm app, etc. immediately after the accident, the victim E’s cell phone number attached to the front left of the Defendant’s vehicle was called “the Defendant is fit.” However, both the Defendant’s cell phone and the Defendant’s cell phone are in the name of J, whose mother is the Defendant’s mother. The Defendant left the scene with two cell phoness, and the Defendant did not inform the victims of data that can identify the victims, such as the Defendant’s name, contact telephone number, and address (the victim’s vehicle number and the cell phone number whose arrival was suspended under the Defendant’s mother’s name cannot be deemed to have provided his own personal information to the victims).

Although the defendant stated that "the defendant has received insurance from the victims requesting the receipt of insurance, it will continue to accept the insurance." However, at around 18:27:36, a mobile phone with the same part of the fire representative (158-0100) through 114, the defendant sent a phone for about 10 seconds, and did not accept the insurance. The victim E, while the defendant received the insurance, contacted the insurance company of his own damaged vehicle without notifying the insurance receipt number, and then knew the fact.2) The defendant argued that he did not receive the insurance for about 15 minutes to 20 minutes since he was waiting for the victims. However, in light of the above circumstances, the defendant merely dealt with the insurance receipt.

The Defendant did not make any speech to the victims, and both the cell phone two cell phones have been placed more than 775 meters away from the scene, leaving the scene with no knowledge of the victims, and went to the 775 meters away from the scene. Since then 02:26 on the following day, the victims received an accident from the insurance company. The victims knew that the Defendant had arrived at the scene after the victims of the damaged vehicle, and only after visiting the hospital for medical treatment, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was receiving the insurance. The Defendant asserted that, after the accident occurred in the vicinity of the accident, he went to the plenarys using the plenarys in the face of the victim, and went to the plenarys. However, considering the victims’ statements, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion. Furthermore, as long as the Defendant did not know of the personal information of the victims of the accident, such as the victim’s failure to take any action at the scene or to inform the victims of the accident, the Defendant did not know of his intention to leave the scene.

1. The grounds for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months from 15 years;

2. Application 4 of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of type] The first type of flight (the escape after bodily injury) after traffic accident.

【Special Exemplarys】 In the event of a minor injury

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment of six months to one year

3. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant caused the instant accident to inflict injury on the victims, but went away from the scene of the accident without any relief measures, and the victims want to punish the Defendant. Nevertheless, there is doubt as to whether the Defendant repeatedly repeats arguments that are difficult to accept and thus, is against the authenticity of the Defendant. The Defendant has a record of being punished by a fine of KRW 1.5 million due to drunk driving.

However, after the accident occurred, the defendant showed an attitude toward the victims, the degree of injury of the victims is not severe and the damage recovery seems to have been conducted. The defendant denied the suspicion of escape, but the defendant first contacted the police station about the occurrence of traffic accidents, and other various sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relation, home environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime shall be determined as per the order.

Judges

The presiding judge, judges, and the Yellow Constitution

Judges Kim Gin-soo

Judges Kim Gin-young

Note tin

(i) the rear part of the motor vehicle has been set up, and the panfluor has been set up (total repair cost of KRW 1,071,466), and the motor vehicle of the defendant shall be set up by the front panf.

As such, Mrums came far away.

2) The victim G stated in this court that the Defendant left the scene before making contact with the victim E’s self-insurance company; however, the victim G testified to the effect that the Defendant left the site.

In light of the initial statement(Evidence 15 pages) and the consistent statement of the victim E, the victim E shall be entitled to the Defendant’s insurance

It seems to be consistent with the fact that the defendant left the site after informing him that he had accepted it.

3) The victims stated in the same manner that the Defendant did not spawn, followed tobacco, and made a telephone call. K immediately after the accident (19 cc)

The defendant showed that he had talked about 3 to 4 minutes without a sudden color that seems to have been seen.

4) Since each crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury) is the upper concurrent crime, the sentencing guidelines directly apply to this case.

Although it is not serious, it is to refer to the recommended sentence of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Victims E.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제54조 제1항

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의3

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의3 제1항

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의3 제1항 제2호

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2020.09.10 2019노1953

-인천지방법원 2013.07.12 2013노1440

-춘천지방법원 2017.12.20 2017노482

-수원지방법원 2019.11.01 2019노3257

-서울북부지방법원 2016.10.21 2016노936