logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.30 2016노8275
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles requested the J to deal with the instant accident, and the J confirmed the victim’s condition and received the accident from the insurance company, and complied with the police station investigation, and the Defendant took appropriate measures after the accident.

and there is a criminal intent to escape.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, protection observation, community service order 240 hours, cost burden) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The term "when the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the damaged person" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means the case where the driver of an accident does not take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, in spite of his awareness of the fact that the injured person was injured by the accident, resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident by leaving the accident site before performing his duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Do2563, Jan. 5, 200; 202Do5748, Mar. 25, 2003, etc.).

The fact that J was sent on the spot, ② the Defendant, among the victims, did not talk with anyone, did not confirm the degree of injury or confirm the degree of injury or arrive at the J site five minutes after the victims, and the police officer left the site for the purpose of avoiding drinking control before handling accidents, and ③ the Defendant.

arrow