logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.19 2018노4048
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of mistake of facts did not suffer injury, and even if the injury occurred, this does not result from the instant traffic accident (limited to secondary shocks, etc. with Lao). Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found the guilty of the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicles) on a different premise.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is 1) The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Act”).

In light of the legislative intent of Article 5-3 and the legal interest protected by the Act, if it is not recognized that the accident driver required to take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as actually aiding the victim, the accident driver shall not take measures such as aiding the victim, and even if the accident driver leaves the place, it shall not constitute a crime of violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases.

However, whether it was necessary to take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and details of the accident, the age and degree of the victim's injury, and the circumstances after the accident. However, in light of the fact that Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act grants a person who caused the accident an emergency responsibility for providing relief to the person who caused the accident, the victim actively expressed that it is unnecessary to take relief measures in order to recognize that there was no need to take such measures as providing relief.

The circumstances that do not require any other emergency measure should be objectively and clearly revealed at the time immediately after the accident, and there was no big inconvenience to the victim immediately after the accident.

arrow