logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.01.18 2018노985
도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
Text

The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

Defendant. A fine.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant [the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after-accident)], according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the traffic accident in this case in itself did not cause any cause attributable to the defendant and does not cause any danger or obstacle to traffic.

Even if the defendant had a possibility of confluence on his/her own, he/she did not take necessary measures, such as notifying the other driver of his/her personal information, and thereby leaving the site to create or increase traffic risks and obstacles, the court below acquitted him/her of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles of the Road Traffic Act

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two hours of community service order, 80 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of order to attend a compliance driving lecture) is too heavy or unreasonable (the Defendant).

2. The purport of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act to determine the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles on the road, not to restore the physical damage of the victim. In such cases, measures to be taken by the driver shall be appropriately taken according to the specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures shall be ordinarily required in light of sound cultivation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4452 Decided October 22, 2002, and 2017Do9828 Decided October 26, 2017, etc.). In light of such legal principles, the following circumstances are considered as follows: (a) the instant accident at an investigative agency is one’s own accident.

arrow