Where a person cannot be deemed to have an intention to flee without providing any relief to the victim;

In other words, the victim is not in the location of any injury because the victim gets off from the vehicle of the defendant's driving. In other words, if the victim already moves away from the scene without reporting it to a relief measure or a police agency, it cannot be said that the defendant has an intention to flee without providing relief to the victim.

Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Defendant

Busan District Court (80Gohap524)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 2,000 into one day.

One hundred and thirty days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse.

The first point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is that the court below erred by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the second point is that the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

In full view of the evidence duly examined by the court below compared the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant neglected duty of care as an operator at the time, place, and place of original adjudication and caused injury to the victim, such as failure to perform his duty of care for about 10 days. However, considering the above evidence and the statement of the victim by the witness at the court below, the defendant left the place where the accident occurred, and returned to the victim after stopping and stopping after leaving the place where the accident occurred, it can be recognized that the victim had already been faced with another person's axis, and it can be recognized that the victim was not at the location of any injury, or left the place without reporting to the police office. Accordingly, in these facts, it is difficult to view that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the violation of Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, i.e., the scope provided for in Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the remaining violation of the Criminal Procedure Act.

On February 6, 1980: (a) the Defendant driven a car at around 35 (vehicle number omitted) and discovered a victim (16 years old) who is trying to cross the road from the center of the road to the right side of about 10 meters in front of the road at a speed of about 30 km in the direction of the Si-U.S. Dongdong-dong, Busan. In such a case, the person engaging in driving service first crosses the road to the right side of the road at about 10 meters in front of the road in the direction of the Si-U.S., and even if it is proceeding or proceeding, the person who is engaged in driving service has the duty of care to avoid collision with the pedestrian who is under adjustment of speed and direction even if he is under the duty of care, without fulfilling the above duty of care, by negligence and negligence that the above pedestrian thought that he would be under way to avoid the collision with the above pedestrian, and thereby, the above pedestrian suffered a conflict with the above victim in the front left side of the vehicle, after receiving the above victim for about 10 days.

The facts of the judgment, as the case may be, shall be

1. The defendant's party statement and each part of the statement consistent with the facts set forth in the original judgment;

1. A statement that conforms to the facts stated by the victim of the trial witness;

1. Statement that corresponds to the facts indicated in the protocol of examination of the accused of the prosecutor;

1. Statements consistent with the judgment in the records of statement made by the judicial police officer with the victims involved in the preparation of administrative affairs;

1. Records consistent with the judgment in the records of verification of affairs conducted by judicial police officers;

1. A statement that corresponds to the part, degree, and degree of injury caused by the judgment among medical certificates against a victim in preparing a moving file of a doctor;

As a whole, there is sufficient proof.

On the other hand, the court below's decision falls under Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant's decision shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won within the scope of the amount increased under Article 4 (1) of the Act on Temporary Measures such as Fines, etc., and when the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period of converting the amount of 2,000 won into one day under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act, and 130 days out of the detention days before the sentence of the court below is included in the period of detention.

The facts charged by the prosecutor in the instant case are that the defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the negligence of the defendant's driving as stated in the above facts charged, and does not immediately stop and take measures to rescue the female, and the defendant does not have the intent to commit the crime of escape as stated in the reasons for reversal. In addition, the defendant cannot be acknowledged as having the intention to commit the crime of escape, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, it is not guilty. However, since the defendant was convicted of the crime of injury by occupational negligence,

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judges Yoon Young (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)