2010No1537 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicles), Dos

Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Measures Not to be Taken after Accidents)

prescribedA (48 years old, South)

Defendant

For gambry

Attorney Lee Hong-hoon

Busan District Court Decision 2009Gohap8944 Decided April 30, 2010

August 27, 2010

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The Defendant and the defense counsel did not recognize the fact that the victim was injured by the accident of this case, and delivered the vehicle registration certificate and the insurance policy to the husband of the victim, and left the scene after requesting the passenger to deal with the accident, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case without any escape, and there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the sentence of the court below (the fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

1) Judgment of the court below

The defense counsel argues that the defendant did not recognize the fact that he suffered the injury by stating that the victim was the only victim at the scene of the accident, and that in such circumstances, after issuing the vehicle registration certificate and the insurance certificate to the victim, he did not escape because he requested the treatment of the accident on behalf of the victim after requesting the treatment of the accident on behalf of the victim and leaving the scene of the accident.

In light of the evidence and records, the following facts are examined. The defendant left the accident site without confirming whether the victim or c1 was injured or not (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do1415, Aug. 20, 1996; 96Do1415, Aug. 20, 1996). Furthermore, the victim's husband, who was accompanied by the victim's c1 continued to make an objection to the defendant at the accident site. At first, the victim's husband, stated that the defendant was a customer who was frequently injured by his restaurant and did not know his personal information, such as the victim's name, etc. (the investigation record 42 pages, but the defendant was well aware of the victim's contact number after the accident, but the defendant was not aware of the victim's cell phone number, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1415, Aug. 20, 209).

2) The judgment of this Court

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case is conducted, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case based on the above judgment is just, and even if the defendant asked for accident treatment, he did not take measures such as reporting an accident after leaving the scene or providing relief to the victim, and as long as he left the site as he does not take measures such as aiding and abetting, the defendant actually was in a very closely-friendly relationship different from the statement made by the investigative agency, and thus, he did not take necessary measures by requesting accident treatment to the Da. Thus, the defendant and the defense counsel's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

On the other hand, the accident of this case was a relatively minor accident that led to the damage of the victim by drilling the passenger car of this case for about two weeks in order to take advantage of the victim's driver's driver's car, and at the same time the damaged passenger car was damaged by being damaged by 172,00 won. The defendant's driver's car was covered by a comprehensive automobile insurance, and immediately after the accident occurred, the defendant issued a vehicle registration certificate and an insurance certificate to his husband, and left the scene in the accident scene, and there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances such as the crime. However, although the defendant denied the charge of this case, there is no pre-determinedness; the defendant did not agree with the victim; the defendant caused the accident of this case while driving the vehicle while drinking, the defendant's statutory punishment for the violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Dok vehicle) was a fine, and the defendant's maximum sentence was imposed on the defendant, the circumstances and circumstances leading to the defendant's occupation and behavior in this case; the defendant's age, the circumstances and circumstances following the crime, and the record.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and senior judge;

Judge Lee Dong-dong

Judges Shin Jae-won