beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant, at the time of the instant traffic accident, expressed the place of accident, the name of the Defendant, the vehicle number, etc. by phone call at 112 while moving the cab to a hospital where the accident occurred, after informing the her of the fact of accident and requesting him/her of the accident after informing him/her of the accident.
Considering the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle was damaged more than the damaged vehicle due to the instant traffic accident, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant recognized the victim’s injury at the time of leaving the scene. Therefore, the Defendant has no intention to escape.
In addition, since the defendant took measures by requesting the branch to deal with the accident and reported 112, and expressed his identity as the driver of the accident, it cannot be deemed that the defendant left the site with the intention of escape without taking any measure and caused the situation in which the identity of the driver of the accident cannot be determined.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. On June 25, 2013, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below. (A) The Defendant operated a coo vehicle on June 25, 2013 by driving a coo vehicle and run the coo vehicle in the direction of the coote apartment in the school life zone in the school life zone, and entered the road in the direction of GS home shopping in the crogate, while the Defendant entered the road in the direction of GS home shopping in the crogate, he received one ton tower in the front part of the Defendant vehicle in the direction of GS home shopping in the front part of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Defendant’s front offender and part of the main dive part of the main divers and the main divers of the vehicle were destroyed.