[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)·도로교통법위반][공1996.10.1.(19),2924]
[1] The meaning of "the case where" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes
[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which admitted the intention of escape to the accident driver who voluntarily left the accident site without confirming the victim's injury
[1] "When a driver runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" refers to a case where a driver of an accident runs away from the scene of an accident before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim although he/she was aware of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident, resulting in a situation that cannot be determined
[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which admitted the intention of escape to the accident driver who voluntarily left the accident site without confirming whether the victim was injured
[1] Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article
[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Do1680 delivered on November 24, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 300), Supreme Court Decision 96Do252 delivered on April 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1481), Supreme Court Decision 96Do358 delivered on April 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1644)
Defendant
Defendant
Seoul District Court Decision 96No1381 delivered on May 14, 1996
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes ("the case where a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding a victim, etc." refers to the case where the driver of an accident, despite his knowledge of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, brings about a situation that cannot be confirmed as the victim of the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1680 delivered on Nov. 24, 1995,
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the above facts, the court below found that the defendant was not in possession of the above driver's license and the victim's duty of care at the time of the accident, and found that the victim did not suffer any injury to the victim at the time of the accident after deducting the above driver's vehicle group from the 15 meters back to the road, and that the victim was unable to move the quith of the above taxi due to the above accident, and that the defendant was not in possession of the above driver's license, and then the defendant did not request the defendant to present the driver's license. The defendant was not in possession of the above driver's license and issued the vehicle register (the premium payment receipt was included in the above vehicle register) of the defendant's driver's vehicle did not appear in conformity with the above driver's driver's license number and the above vehicle number on the above vehicle register, and it was hard to find the victim's remaining in front of the accident without considering the situation that the victim did not have any harm to the victim's vehicle at the time of the accident.
In addition, in this case where a sentence of less than 10 years of imprisonment is imposed, the reason that the sentencing is too excessive is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)