logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.08.11 2017노1317
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치사)등
Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the records of this case, on February 8, 2017, the Defendant filed an appeal against the lower court on February 8, 2017, and failed to submit a statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days from the date of receipt of the records of trial on March 3, 2017, and the petition of appeal does not contain the grounds for appeal, and even if examining the lower judgment, it cannot be found that the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable (it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal as it was asserted after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal). Therefore, a decision to dismiss the Defendant’s appeal pursuant to Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act should be made, or as long as a judgment on the Defendant’s appeal is rendered on March 3, 2017, without separately rejecting the appeal.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service order) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Although the Defendant caused the instant traffic accident while driving alcohol, resulting in a serious result of the death of the victim, the Defendant did not properly take relief measures, etc., and the nature of such crime is less and less than that of the victim.

However, the defendant recognized all the facts charged of this case when he was in the trial, and there is no other punishment other than being punished once by drinking driving due to the same kind of crime, the vehicle of the defendant is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, the vehicle of the defendant is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, the payment of the 60 million won at the court below and agreement with the victim's bereaved family members, and the negligence of the victim who illegally crossed without permission at the time of this case also caused the accident.

On the other hand, after the accident, the report of the defendant 119 has been made to the victim and the emergency measures have been taken to leave the site of the defendant.

arrow