2017No4384 Violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury)

Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Measures Not to be Taken after Accidents), and Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Liju)

Refusal of Measurement)

A

Defendant

Kim Ho-ho (Lawsuit), Park Jong-young (Trial)

Law Firm Q Q

[Defendant-Appellee]

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017 Height5200 Decided November 14, 2017

January 26, 2018

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

The Defendant caused a traffic accident in violation of the signal while under the influence of alcohol, thereby causing the injury to the victim and damaging the vehicle. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not take necessary relief measures and went away as is, and caused the secondary accident. The Defendant did not comply with the police officer’s drinking measurement. The Defendant’s refusal to take a drinking alcohol measurement and thus, cannot confirm the accurate blood alcohol level at the time of the accident. However, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant had no intention to abscond, as the Defendant did not know of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, even though he did not have an intention to flee. However, the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the fact that the Defendant had been punished two times prior to the instant crime, and was punished twice as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (HA) and was punished several times due to driving without a license. Considering these circumstances, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant significantly corresponding to the mistake.

However, it appears that the Defendant made a confession of all the instant crimes and reflects the mistake thereof at the time of the appellate trial. The fact that the Defendant paid KRW 2 million to the victim of the traffic accident in the appellate trial and agreed to do so can be evaluated as a favorable change in the terms of sentencing. In full view of the changes in the terms of sentencing and all the conditions of sentencing indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the punishment imposed by the lower court is somewhat unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision shall be rendered

【Discretionary Judgment】

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The criminal facts against the defendant recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are as follows, except for adding "1. The defendant's oral statement in the appellate court" to the summary of the evidence, since it is the same as the statement in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, they are quoted as it is in accordance with Article

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, Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (a refusal of the measurement of noise)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

The presiding judge, senior judge, and leather

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Hwang Sung-sung