특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is without fault on the occurrence of the instant accident, and the injury of the victim is not caused by the instant accident, and the defendant does not need relief measures because he/she was unaware of the victim's identity.
Since it was judged to leave the field, there was no intention of escape.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by using the statement of the victim without credibility as evidence.
2. Determination:
A. The lower court’s judgment was proceeded with the citizen participation trial, and the jury participated in the trial before and after the trial of facts such as examination of witness, and subsequently rendered a verdict of conviction against the Defendant on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (domination award) against the Defendant, with the unanimous verdict of seven jurors, and the lower court adopted the results of the jury’s verdict and convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.
B. The judgment of this court 1) The phrase "when the driver of the 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 the accident does not take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act despite the driver's knowledge of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured by the accident and brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do5023, Mar. 28, 200; Supreme Court Decision 9Do5023, Mar. 28, 200; Supreme Court Decision 200Do5748, Mar. 25, 2003).