beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles1) The Defendant thought that he had contacted with the wing at the front of the road at the time of the occurrence of the accident, but did not recognize the shocking fact of the victim E’s vehicle. Since he arrived at G Hospital at the destination after confirming the vehicle, the Defendant’s wife immediately reported to 112. 2) Even if the Defendant recognized the shocking fact with the victim, in light of the following: (a) even if the Defendant was aware of the shocking fact with the victim’s vehicle, the accident was insignificant and the victim did not have to take measures to prevent or eliminate traffic hazards and obstacles; and (b) there was no need to take measures to prevent or eliminate traffic hazards and obstacles, and even if the Defendant left the scene of the accident without any action, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (after-accident measures) is not established.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is established when a person involved in a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act as provided in Article 148 and Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act (measures after an accident) does not immediately stop and provide personal information, even though the driver involved in the accident knows that the article was damaged by the accident.
In this case, the degree of awareness about the facts damaged by an accident is not necessarily required to be confirmed, but it is sufficient if the driver of the accident knew about the fact that the accident occurred, and even if he/she knew about the accident occurred, he/she could have easily confirmed if he/she had been directly checked immediately after the accident, and if he/she left the accident site with the knowledge that it was not a separate measure, the driver of the accident would have known about the occurrence of the accident and attempted to flee even if he/she had
Supreme Court Decision 200Da1448 delivered on March 28, 200.