logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.12.18 2014노1371
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant recognized the fact that a contact accident occurred at the time, stopped at the front of the accident site, and requested a stop to the driver of the vehicle who appears to have contacted the Defendant, but did not know that there was a subsequent accident after the contact accident due to the driver’s handout and leaving the site. However, the Defendant was unaware that there was no need to take any particular relief measures due to a minor contact accident, and that there was no intention to escape from the site.

B. The sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant is deemed to have recognized that the subsequent accident occurred. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

1) Prior to the occurrence of the contact, the victim stated that the vehicle was defective in order to change the vehicle line in one way the vehicle was driven by himself (Evidence No. 50 pages). According to the black image of the damaged vehicle, the defendant opened and driven the window of the vehicle of the defendant. The defendant seems to have confirmed the rear side of the vehicle of the defendant by hearing light sound from the rear side and intersuring, etc. The defendant recognized that there was shock on the rear side of the vehicle of the defendant at the time of the contact. The defendant, who recognized that there was shock on the rear side of the vehicle of the defendant, seems to have confirmed the rear side of the vehicle of the victim. As such, the defendant who confirmed the rear side of the vehicle of the defendant after the contact, was also aware that the damaged vehicle was driven in the front side of the vehicle of the vehicle of the defendant, such as the Gap-surler, etc. after the contact.

arrow