logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.07.16 2014노3266
도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, K driving a vehicle of the Defendant at the time of the instant case, which is inevitably driven by the Defendant, while entering and leaving a vehicle on the road that was disputed by sexual indecent conduct with the Defendant, so that the Defendant does not interfere with traffic flow.

Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes an emergency evacuation and there was a justifiable reason for the crime of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles which found guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant’s act of driving alcohol while drinking can not be deemed as an emergency evacuation in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court.

Even if K has left the vehicle on the road as the defendant's assertion, it seems that the defendant could have sufficiently moved another person by taking measures such as operating emergency warning, reporting to the police, etc., and it is difficult to view that the defendant was a situation in which he should drive the vehicle inevitably.

Furthermore, considering that the instant accident was different from the point where the Defendant started driving, and that the Defendant was the Defendant before the accident occurred, it is difficult to evaluate that the Defendant’s act of driving the vehicle up to the point where the accident occurred to avoid imminent danger.

Furthermore, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant crime was inevitable to drive is not a ground to justify each of the instant crimes, by itself, that the Defendant’s act of escaping from an accident and refusing to take a alcohol test.

Accordingly, the defendant and the defendant.

arrow