logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.17 2019노1688
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal cannot be deemed to have suffered injury under the Criminal Act due to the instant traffic accident, and the Defendant cannot be recognized as a criminal intent of escape because the victim did not recognize the occurrence of injury. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.

2. The Defendant denied the facts charged in this case by asserting that the lower court had the same purport as that of the trial at the lower court, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds of the reasons stated in Articles 3 and 4 of the original judgment.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in detail, the court below's judgment is just in its determination on the following grounds: (a) considering the following circumstances revealed in detail, the defendant suffered bodily injury, such as cerebral wave, etc., requiring treatment for about three weeks by failing to stop immediately and stop the victim, and sufficiently recognized the fact that the defendant escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim, even though he/she did so by failing to perform his/her duty of care; and (b) therefore, the court below's judgment

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

① The victim consistently stated from the police to the court of the court below that, immediately after the accident, the Defendant’s wife stated that the Defendant’s wife stated that “the head is sufficient to salking the head due to the accident, and the head is cut off.”

The F, immediately after the accident, stated that the Defendant “I am the same as that of a child or head, so I am the woman,” and the police also asked the victim whether she is fine or not, and asked twice to the extent that the head is sound, and there is no further statement to the victim.

arrow