특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant left the site without taking measures such as aiding the victim at the time of the occurrence of a traffic accident, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. In light of the legislative intent of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the legal interest and protection thereof, it was necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the person actually damaged by the driver of the accident.
If it is not recognized, the driver of the accident shall not take measures, such as aiding the victim, but leave the place of the accident.
In light of the fact that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act imposes an emergency relief liability on a person who caused an accident, it does not need to take measures, such as aiding and abetting the victim, in light of the fact that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act imposes an emergency relief liability on the person who caused the accident. In light of the fact that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act imposes an emergency relief liability on the person who caused the accident.
In order to recognize that the victim actively expressed that relief measures need not be taken or that other emergency measures do not need to be taken, objective and clearly at the time immediately after the accident should be revealed. Only for the reasons that there was no big inconvenience in the victim’s movement after the accident, and there was no significant appearance, and that there was no need to do so on the sole basis of the fact that there was a fact that the degree of damage was relatively minor.
It cannot be readily concluded (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1317 decided May 28, 2009, etc.)
B. We return to the instant case, and to the head of G hospital in the lower court.