The number of crimes committed in case of multiple persons due to a car accident at one time.

If one motor vehicle accident causes a number of people, this is not a comprehensive one crime, but a single act constitutes several crimes, and it should be applied to the ordinary concurrent crimes.

Articles 40 and 268 of the Criminal Act

Seoul High Court Decision 72Do2001 delivered on October 31, 1972, 74No1023 delivered on November 21, 1974

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defense Counsel

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Court Decision 74Gohap140 decided January 1, 198

Of the judgment of the court below, the part against Defendant 1 and the guilty part against Defendant 2 shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and six months and by imprisonment for not more than eight months.

From among detention days before the sentence of the lower judgment, 80 days shall be included in the calculation of Defendant 1, and 55 days shall be included in the calculation of the said sentence.

However, with respect to Defendant 2, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The prosecutor's appeal against the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below is dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 1 is as follows: first, although the defendant was under a state of mental disability due to drinking at the time of the crime in this case, if the defendant denies the crime even though he did drinking before the crime in this case, and returned to his house on his own, despite the fact that he could not be seen that the defendant was under a state of mental disability, the court below found the defendant's testimony and statement as to non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's statement and prosecutor's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted.

The gist of Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s grounds for appeal is as follows: first, the court below found Defendant 2 guilty of the facts charged of Defendant 2’s demand for bribe with Defendant 1’s statement made by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, but they thought that Defendant 2 arrested Defendant 1 and detained Nonindicted 2 as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties; second, Defendant 2 was a person with bad appraisal against Defendant 2; second, Defendant 2 was a person at the Chinese house, the place where Defendant 2 requested a bribe as an incentive when arresting Defendant 1; second, Defendant 1 was a person at the Chinese house, which is a place where Defendant 2 demanded a bribe as an incentive; however, Defendant 2 was arrested with another person’s cooperation by reporting the instrument that Defendant 1 attempted to flee; second, Defendant 2 was a robbery; and Defendant 2 was arrested with another person’s cooperation in accordance

In light of the fact that the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 2's statement cannot be trusted, although the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 2's statement cannot be believed, the court below committed an unlawful act that misleads the facts by violating the rules of evidence, and second, the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the records, in light of the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant 1 and the evidence adopted by the court below following lawful evidence examination, Defendant 2 was in a state of mental disorder although drinking was not in a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime, and it is sufficient to recognize the escape fact, and it is sufficient to recognize the escape fact, and otherwise, it cannot be found that there was an error of law in violation of the empirical rule and logical rule as pointed out in the process of fact-finding by the court below, and the reasons for

Next, with respect to the prosecutor's assertion of the reasons and the violation of the law against the defendant, it is difficult to see that the defendant had drinking before driving the motor vehicle in this case under the state of mental disability, but he had no evidence to find that he had predicted the occurrence of danger and caused the mental disorder by his own person, and there is no evidence to recognize it differently, and thus, it is difficult to accept the argument that he had committed a free act in the cause.

However, since there are two victims who suffered injuries due to traffic accidents, such as the time of the judgment of the court below, this is the case where one act constitutes several crimes, and therefore, it should be punished in accordance with Article 40 of the Criminal Act. However, the judgment of the court below is a violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, which is punished as one of the serious crimes, and this affected the judgment. Thus, the appeal against Defendant 1, who is the prosecutor's care of it, is reasonable in this respect. Since the same crime is punished as concurrent crimes with other crimes against the defendant, the part of the judgment of the court below which does not require a determination on the argument on unfair sentencing of the prosecutor, the defendant, and his defense counsel, should not be reversed.

Next, in light of the prosecutor's reasons for appeal against the defendant 2, the prosecutor's statement purport of the defendant's statement is that the defendant's statement would result in failure to perform his own legitimate duties, and it is recognized that it was not the purport of the prosecutor's transfer of duty to the defendant at the time of crime, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had a criminal intent to commit a crime of abandonment of duty, and thus, the part of the judgment below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had a criminal intent to commit a crime of abandonment of duty is just

Next, in light of the records, as to the first ground for appeal by Defendant 2’s attorney, the facts constituting the crime of bribe request at the time of original adjudication, and the facts charged at the time of original adjudication are sufficiently recognized, and the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts cannot be accepted as it is not recognized that there were errors by the rules of evidence as pointed out in the course of documentary evidence examination. Furthermore, as to the second ground for appeal of unfair sentencing, considering various circumstances such as health, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, means, results, and circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing, the lower court’s judgment’s sentencing against Defendant 2 is too unreasonable, and therefore, there is a reason to appeal by the Defendant in this regard, and therefore, the guilty part against the said Defendant cannot be reversed.

3. Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion of Defendant 2 among the judgment below is dismissed. Pursuant to Article 364(6) of the same Act, the part against Defendant 1 among the judgment below and the conviction portion against Defendant 2 shall be reversed, and the part against Defendant 2 shall be reversed,

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies to the defendants who are admitted as a party member and the summary of the evidence as stated in each corresponding case of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited as it is.

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

Of the judgment of the court below, the point of driving without obtaining a license is as follows: Article 75 subparagraph 1, Article 38 of the Road Traffic Act; Article 75 subparagraph 2, Article 39 of the same Act; Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; and Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; and Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act for each victim, since one act constitutes several crimes; Article 50 of the Criminal Act provides that a person shall be punished as injury to non-indicted 3 who is serious criminal punishment; Article 50 of the same Act provides that a person shall be punished as injury to non-indicted 3; Article 10 (2) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 55 (1) 3 of the same Act shall apply to the so-called so-called crime of mental or physical disability; Article 10 (2) of the same Act shall apply to the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for the last half of the prescribed period; Article 258 (1) of the same Act shall apply to the above punishment.

4. It is so decided as per Disposition for more than one reason.

Judges Shin Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)