beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death or Injury caused by Escape), the Defendant thought that wild animals were shocked at the time of the instant case and did not recognize that he was shocked by others, and thus, there was a criminal intent to commit a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc
subsection (b) of this section.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The phrase "when the driver of the accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the damaged person" as provided by Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means the case where the driver of the accident runs away from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person although he/she was aware of the fact that the injured person was injured by the accident, resulting in a situation where it is impossible to determine who caused the accident, and the degree of awareness of the fact that the injured person was injured by the accident does not necessarily require confirmation and even if he/she was aware that the driver could have easily confirmed the accident if he/she was directly checked immediately after the accident, but did not take such measures, and if he/she left the scene, he/she was aware that the driver of the accident had an intention to escape even if he/she had an intention to escape.
The defendant is also the court below's decision. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6485 delivered on December 9, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 99Do5023 delivered on March 28, 200, etc.). (2) The defendant is also the defendant.