(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.12.21 2018노347 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.12.21 2018노347

도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have any intention to flee because it had been returned to the place of accident since there was no time after the accident occurred.

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

2. Determination

A. In determining whether the driver of an accident who made a mistake in the misapprehension of the legal principle has escaped from the scene of the accident with the criminal intent of the escape before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, the following should be comprehensively taken into account: (a) the course and contents of the accident; (b) the degree of the driver's negligence; (c) the age and gender of the driver of the accident and the victim; and (d) the circumstances after the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8627, Jun. 11, 2009). However, the above legal principle also applies to the determination of the criminal intent of the escape measures after the accident under Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

The defendant has left the place of an accident for his/her school to move to school, sent his/her father/child to school, and returned to the school. Therefore, the defendant did not leave the scene of the accident due to the criminal intent of escape.

The argument is asserted.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined in the court below and the trial of the court below, namely, ① the defendant stated in the police investigation that “after the police investigation, the defendant sent to the low-income husband after the house, saying that he would have to go to the accident scene after the accident was received from the insurance company, and that the low-income husband would go to the accident site again after about 40 minutes after the accident occurred,” and ② did not take measures after the traffic accident, ② the investigator’s question asked for the reasons between the house and the house without taking measures after the traffic accident, and how the accident should be done because there was no such case.

“The answer to the purport,” and ③ separately for the purpose of attending the school of his father.

참조조문

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2016.05.03 2015노2715

-수원지방법원 2016.05.18 2015노5144

-수원지방법원 2018.04.18 2017노8153

-인천지방법원 2017.12.20 2017노3551

-대구지방법원 2017.01.19 2016노2557