logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.02.04 2015노2262
교통사고처리특례법위반등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the court below (4 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-finding (Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents) ① A defendant, at the time of an accident, is expected to have driven a relatively large range of 20 meters from the point of accident of the vehicle with a relatively large width at the time of the accident, and then get off the vehicle from the vehicle to the victim G through the 119 emergency squad. ② The defendant, after the accident, appears to have been sent the victim by telephone to the victim and shocking the victim without viewing the victim. The insurance relation also appears to have been mentioned, ③ there is a trace that the victim was slicking in part before and after the front of the truck of the driver’s vehicle. ④ If the victim was used by the preceding vehicle, the defendant should have investigated the victim's crew members or police officers, but the defendant's assertion that the victim did not have any previous vehicle, as mentioned in the facts charged, could be sufficiently considered.

Of the facts charged in this case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, thereby affecting the judgment.

2) The unfair sentencing sentence of the lower court is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of prosecutor facts

A. The lower court, on the following grounds, fully proven the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents among the instant facts charged to the extent that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as a certain doubtful circumstance and the police statement of H, which was merely a reply to the prosecution, is beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see

is determined.

1) Examining this part of the facts charged in light of the fact-finding survey document.

arrow