logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.01.15 2014노2547
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were caused by the shock of the instant accident, which led to a serious scarcity and scarcity in the Defendant’s vehicle, requested the wife who was on board the Defendant’s vehicle to deal with the accident and left the scene, and the wife of the Defendant who was on the site was in charge of the accident, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to escape.

The lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts 1) Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to the case where the driver of an accident does not take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding the victim, and runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes despite the awareness of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, and brings about a situation in which it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident. Thus, if the driver of the accident went away from the accident site prior to the implementation of duties under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding the victim although the driver was aware of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, the driver of the accident does not take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding the victim and aiding the victim without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do1614, Mar. 214, 20014.

arrow