logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.29 2017노1422
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치사)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The defendant of the trial at the trial court is sentenced to a three-year imprisonment and a five-year imprisonment with prison labor for the crime under Articles 18 and 28 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes,

Defendant

Since only the appeal was lodged for the reason of sentencing, the scope of the trial of the party shall be limited to ① to ④ the crimes.

When considering the fact that the mother who has been living together with the aged in the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) has lent KRW 30 million to the victim of death and that there is an economic difficulty, the sentence imposed by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

① The fact that the Defendant misleads the victim and reflects his fault, ② that the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle is subscribed to a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and thus the bereaved family members of the victim of death are expected to be paid KRW 270 million as compensation for damages (trial record 89 pages), ③ that the mother’s parents, etc. of the Defendant are economically difficult, and even if they are in sick status, they have leased KRW 30 million and agreed to pay it to the bereaved family members of the victim (the court record 19-121 of the trial record, reference materials of June 8, 2017) and that the second accident victim J. (the court record 141 of the trial record) has agreed to pay KRW 1.2 million to the victim of the second accident (the court record 1.41 of the trial record).

In addition, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim H of the second accident (which was not punished on May 25, 2017) is the changed sentencing condition in the trial.

On the other hand, the defendant, while driving a signal violation at 0.159% in blood alcohol level, did not take any rescue measures and did not take any rescue measures, and the defendant escaped. The driver, who is the driver of the Otoba, caused the death of the victim, resulting in a significant result, and the second accident occurred due to the sudden driving such as signal violation and central invasion.

arrow