logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.19 2017노1669
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치상)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Since the main point of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) is doubtful as to whether the degree of injury caused by the instant accident constitutes injury, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on mistake of facts and recognition of injury.

The punishment of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

In particular, the defendant is preparing the public notice of appointment of public educational officials, and when the judgment of probation becomes final and conclusive, the circumstance that he/she becomes disqualified for appointment for two years from the end of the probation period should be considered.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, KRW 251,00 was paid from the insurer to the physical damage of the damaged vehicle, KRW 157,570, and KRW 97,310 was paid from the victim C and F, respectively.

The details of medical expenses paid to victims E does not appear (Evidence No. 1, 10 August 10, 2017). The victims were diagnosed by the hospital on February 7, 2017 (the date) after two days from February 5, 2017, the date of the accident.

The victims of the diagnosis report are two weeks injury, and the victim C(52) was diagnosed as "the Madern, tension, shoulder, and tension of the Hadles, the Madern and tension of the Hadles, the victim E(26)", and the victim F(54) as "the Madern and tension of the Hadles (e.g., the Hadles)" (Evidence No. 33-35 of the evidence record). At the time of the accident, the victim wearing the safety level. At the time of the accident, the victim C was found to have driven the damaged vehicle at a speed of 31 to 40km per hour, and the victim was found to have been parked at a speed of 51 to 40 meters per hour (Evidence No. 5-7 of the evidence), and the victim E was found to have not been issued the victim's seat on the day of the accident, and the victim was not the first passenger on the day of the accident and the second passenger on the day of the accident.

arrow