(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.11.28 2013노2053 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2013.11.28 2013노2053

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant caused a traffic accident, such as mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

However, the Defendant did not think that at the time of the instant case, he was faced with animals, and did not think that he was faced with people, and left the scene of the accident, so there was no criminal intent for escape.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case was erroneous or erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to the case where the accident driver escaped from the accident site before performing his/her duty as provided in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, and brings about a situation where the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed, such as aiding the victim, although he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed or injured. The degree of awareness of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident does not necessarily need to be confirmed, and it is sufficient if the victim knew of the fact that he/she could have easily confirmed the fact that he/she was killed or injured if he/she had been directly checked immediately after the accident, even though he/she did not take such measures, the intention of the accident driver was aware of the fact of the occurrence of the accident even if he/she was missing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do3929.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제50조 제1항

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의3 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2000. 3. 28. 선고 99도5023 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.09.02 2015노863

-수원지방법원 2015.11.04 2015노1724

-창원지방법원 2016.10.06 2016노1330

-의정부지방법원 2014.09.24 2013노2560

-창원지방법원 2013.10.04 2013노854