logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.12.01 2016노1087
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no need to take relief measures against the victim after the accident, due to the minor degree of injury to the victim and the damage of the victim caused by the accident in this case of mistake of facts.

In addition, the defendant had talked with the victim immediately after the accident and had the victim take a photograph of the defendant's vehicle, and then left the scene only because the victim, who is a taxi engineer, was able to escape from the scene, and did not have the intention to commit a non-measures after the accident.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding the defendant guilty.

B. The lower court’s determination on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following legal principles and records as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the victim's injury caused by the accident in this case cannot be deemed to have been merely in danger to life and body, or annoyed to the extent that it cannot be evaluated as "injury" under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to have been merely in danger to life and body, and considering the degree of shock caused by the accident, the degree of damage to the vehicle, etc., it cannot be deemed that there is no need to take relief measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act against the victim at the time when considering the degree of shock caused by the accident, and the criminal intent of the defendant can be sufficiently recognized after the escape and accident. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is rejected.

In light of the legislative intent and protected legal interests under Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, in cases where it is not deemed necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim, considering all the details and details of the accident, the age and degree of the victim, and the circumstances after the accident, etc., the accident driver shall provide relief to the victim.

arrow