(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.08.25 2017노387

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.08.25 2017노387

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등

Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Fact-misunderstanding (as to the escape after the injury), the Defendant was only moved to park a vehicle, but does not leave the scene of the accident with the criminal intent of the escape.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of this case, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of having committed suicide after having injured the Defendant.

2) In light of the agreement with the victim of an unfair traffic accident, the sentence of a fine of KRW 7 million imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the following: (a) the prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) was a majority of the criminal history of the Defendant; (b) was a crime during the period of repeated offense; and (c) was charged with additional crimes of the 2016 highest order and 4326 higher order after instituting a prosecution for the 2016 highest order of the lower judgment, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts. As duly admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, in light of the following: (a) there was no reason such as parking the vehicle on the street at the accident site; (b) the 112 declaration and the 119 declaration are not available; (c) the victim was off the site and the victim cannot be found; and (d) there was no subsequent declaration, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize that the Defendant left the site as the criminal intent of escape; and (c) the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

B. In light of the following: (a) review of the determination of each of the unlawful arguments regarding sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor; (b) the Defendant re-offendered without being aware of the same during the period of repeated crime; (c) the time when the Defendant was prosecuted for an investigation of the case 3143 [Attachment 4326] as indicated in the lower judgment; and (d) the content of the instant crime was left at the scene of traffic accident victims; or (e) driving a vehicle that did not subscribe to mandatory insurance in a non-insurance state; and (e) the nature of the crime is very difficult.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.06.16 2016노1904

-전주지방법원 2020.01.23 2019노1456

-수원지방법원 2017.06.23 2016노8304

-대전지방법원 2016.12.22 2016노2391

-수원지방법원 2016.06.17 2016노374