Defendant

Both parties

E. E. Madule

Attorney Lee Jong-chul

Jeonju District Court Decision 2008 Godan328 Decided August 14, 2008

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

(1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

The lower court erred by misapprehending the following facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment:

(A) The instant accident caused the Defendant’s vehicle by driving a damaged vehicle by Nonindicted Party 1, the victim Nonindicted Party 1, who entered the middle part of the two-lane road of the said road, with a volume of approximately 1m access from the front line to the front line of the water reservoir to enter the front line of the water zone, and neglecting the duty of the front line of the road, or by neglecting the duty of the front line of the road, or by neglecting the Defendant’s duty of the front line of the road. Thus, the Defendant was negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident.

(B) At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant was carrying about about 50 kilograms of 50 kilograms on his own vehicle (10 cc.) and was listed on a shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot. As such, the Defendant did not recognize that the cargo loaded on the vehicle was less than that of the damaged vehicle, and did not recognize the fact of the instant accident since he did not immediately raise an objection from the victim, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had the intent to escape.

(C) In light of the fact that the collision between the Defendant’s vehicle and the victim’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident is minor, that there is no injury to the victims, and that the injury stated in the injury diagnosis report is likely to be caused by a stimulation in light of the age of the victims, and that Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3, who took aboard the damaged vehicle, did not have any injury due to the instant accident, etc., it is difficult for the victims to regard that the injury was inflicted due to the instant accident, or even if the injury was caused by the instant accident, they cannot be said to have suffered an injury to the extent that it is necessary to

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the fact that the fault of the victim contributed significantly to the occurrence of the accident in this case, and that the vehicle operated by the defendant is covered by a comprehensive insurance, and that the victims and the victims have agreed smoothly, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to violation of the Road Traffic Act)

In addition, the Defendant did not take any measure against the instant traffic accident, and the Defendant proceeded along the road at which the central separation cost was installed after the accident, going beyond the opposite road by using the crosswalk, resulting in new traffic danger in the crosswalk and traffic danger on the opposite road, and thus, the Defendant could not be deemed to have taken necessary measures in the event of the occurrence of the traffic accident under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of various sentencing conditions, such as the fact that the defendant had already been punished several times as the facts of the same crime, and the fact that the crime was committed during the period of probation at the time of the traffic accident in this case, and the fact that the nature of the crime was poor in light of the circumstances and result of the crime,

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts (as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

(1) Whether the defendant's negligence in driving is recognized

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the statement of Non-Indicted 2 at the court of the trial of the party, the victim non-indicted 1 operated the damaged vehicle as stated in the facts charged of this case at the time of the accident, and proceeded as a gold hole from the front side in accordance with the two-lanes of the front side of the Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Kim Jong-do. However, the defendant's vehicle driving at his own vehicle and discovered the entry of the above road from the Geumcheon-cheon reservoir, which is the right side of the above progress direction, and broke, discovered the horn, sound the horn, and received the above road from the front side of the damaged vehicle while entering the front side of the damaged vehicle. In light of the circumstances revealed in the above accident and the records and arguments of this case, the defendant's vehicle and the damaged vehicle were completely entering the road at the time of the accident, and the defendant's assertion that the defendant's vehicle was not negligent in carrying the damaged vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of this case.

(2) Whether the Defendant recognized the occurrence of a traffic accident

According to the evidence examined above, the defendant vehicle at the time of the accident in this case stopped between 2 and 3 minutes of the damaged vehicle and stopped between 2 and 3 minutes of the accident, but Non-indicted 1, the driver of the injured vehicle, was driving the damaged vehicle on the right side and stopped on the right side and left the vehicle, and the defendant was called the defendant to get off the vehicle on the right side, but the defendant was unclaimed, but the defendant was driving the vehicle on the right side without getting off the vehicle on his own, and he was driving the vehicle on the right side, going out of the central line, and the victim stayed about 30 minutes at the site of the accident in this case, and reported the accident in this case to 112, and even though the defendant did not recognize the occurrence of the accident in this case, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(3) Whether relief measures are necessary or not

In light of the legislative intent of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and protected legal interests, if it is not deemed necessary for an accident driver to take measures as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act, such as providing relief to the victim by comprehensively taking into account the details and contents of the accident, the age and degree of the victim, the part and degree of the injury, and the circumstances after the accident, etc., the crime of violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act shall not be committed even if the accident driver actually leaves the place of the accident. However, whether the above relief measures are necessary should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim's damaged part and degree, the contents and circumstances after the accident, the period and circumstances after the accident, the period and contents after the accident, the age of the victim, and the age and health conditions of the victim, etc. In large cases, it may be determined that the defendant is not given an opportunity to make a statement directly with the victim or at least where the defendant stops and it is not necessary to take relief measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do507).

In light of the health team, as seen in the above facts, the background and contents of the accident of this case, the shock form of the accident of this case inferred from the accident, the victim's injury part, degree, and treatment contents (the result of the fact inquiry about ○○○○○, ○○ Maney department, and ○○ Hospital, the victim non-indicted 1, 4, and 5 was actually hospitalized after the accident of this case and received treatment such as the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the Drugs Act, etc., even if the victims did not have any contact with the victim due to the accident of this case, it cannot be deemed that the victims of this case was an insignificant accident to the extent that it can be easily determined immediately after the accident of this case, and in fact, the victim did not have any injury to the victim at the time of the accident of this case, and it cannot be concluded that the victim suffered from the victim's injury by causing the victim's injury to the scene of this case or by causing the victim's injury to the victim's situation of this case of this case.

B. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principle (as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act)

The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and remove traffic risks and obstacles that may occur on roads to ensure safe and smooth traffic, not to recover physical damage to victims. In this case, measures to be taken by drivers at the site should be appropriately taken according to the situation at the scene of the accident, such as the contents of the accident and the degree and degree of damage, and the degree of measures to be taken to the extent that is ordinarily required in light of sound form (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7656, Mar. 29, 2007, etc.).

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted at the court below, i.e., the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle, which is, the degree of damage to the damaged vehicle, are insignificant to the extent that the part of the right fenced part of the damaged vehicle was destroyed to the extent that the repair cost is equivalent to 589,120 won, and there was no division not only to the extent that there was an obstacle to the operation of the vehicle, and the vehicle was moved to the road, and the two vehicles did not lose the power to move to the direction or view, and immediately after the accident, the injured vehicle was moved to the right side to facilitate the passage of the vehicle by the victim non-indicted 1. In this case, it is difficult to view that there was a need for the defendant to take measures to prevent and remove the traffic danger and obstacle caused by the accident to ensure smooth traffic, and even if the risk of the accident was increased by the defendant's moving to the road along the crosswalk installed to the opposite side, it cannot be viewed as the danger of the accident due to the increase in the progress direction and opposition of the vehicle.

Therefore, even if the defendant left the accident site without taking any particular measure, the defendant cannot be punished as a violation of Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act.

C. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In full view of the circumstances that are disadvantageous to the defendant, including the fact that the degree of injury of the victim and the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle is relatively minor, the vehicle driven by the defendant is covered by a comprehensive insurance and that the defendant agreed smoothly with the victims, and the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, and that the defendant does not seem to have divided each of the crimes of this case, such as denying the criminal intent of escape, etc., and other circumstances that are disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, intelligence, environment, etc., the court below's punishment against the defendant is deemed to be too weak or unreasonable, and all the above arguments by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Yong-sung (Presiding Judge)