beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. As to the part on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (i.e., measures not taken after accidents), the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges, despite the possibility that residents, etc. may confise the Defendant, although the Defendant was parked and proceeded at a rapid speed without taking any measures after shocking the damaged vehicle, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
In addition, in light of all other circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) imposed by the court below is too unhutiled and unfair.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the facts charged pertaining to each of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (i.e., victims C and D) with respect to each of the instant charges is as follows: (a) around 01:09 on Nov. 19, 2012, the Defendant escaped from a traffic accident and proceeded with the roads front of the Seocho-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Seo-dong 67-1 Seo-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Incheon, with a view to a view to a view to a view to a view of a distance of
At the time, there are many vehicles parked in a narrow runway, so in such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely drive by accurately operating the steering wheel and brake system.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and negligently parked on the left-hand side of the Defendant’s moving-in, the victim C, who was parked on the Defendant’s moving-in, was the victim C, who was parked on the Defendant’s moving-in left-hand side. The victim D, who was parked on the Defendant’s moving-in right-hand side, continued to be the victim D, who was parked on the Defendant’s moving-in right-hand side of the Defendant’s moving-in.
Ultimately, the Defendant’s negligence in the above occupational negligence equivalent to KRW 847,018, which is the victim C, to the sum of the repair cost, such as the exchange of the front gate, and the victim D.