logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.01 2018노424
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter “instant accident”), went away from the site without recognizing the fact at the time of the occurrence of the accident, and thus, the Defendant did not have a criminal intent to escape from the scene prior to performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act at that time, resulting in a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the above facts guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (7 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. "When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, etc." under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene before performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, although he/she was aware of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured, resulting in a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed, such as aiding the injured person, although he/she was aware of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured. In this context, the degree of awareness of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured, as a result of the accident, is sufficient if he/she knew even if he/she had confirmed the fact that the accident was easily confirmed if he/she was directly confirmed immediately after the accident, even though he/she did not take such measures.

We can see (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do5023 delivered on March 28, 2000, etc.). (b) G. G. Domink, the details and contents of the instant accident, and the degree of shock at the time of the accident.

arrow