[2] The case holding that even if the defendant, as the driver of the accident, suffered the injury and transferred to the hospital by the police without making a report or contact to the police, if he had already taken relief measures against the victim by the police or the first-aid vehicle at that time, it does not constitute "when he escaped without taking necessary measures such as aiding the victim" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, if he had already taken such measures

[2] The case holding that even if the defendant, as the driver of the accident, suffered the injury and transferred to the hospital by the police without making a report or contact to the police, if he had already taken relief measures against the victim by the police or the first-aid vehicle at that time, it does not constitute "when he escaped without taking necessary measures such as aiding the victim" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, if he had already taken such measures

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes"), on the ground that the defendant, at around 17:30 on Nov. 5, 2001, operated the former North Korean 82Ga6828 at a speed of about 70 km at the time of speed of the truck under the influence of 0.172% of blood alcohol level without a driver's license on Nov. 5, 2001, while he was driving the truck of the former North Korean 82Na6828 at about a speed of about 70 km, he was driving the truck of the former North Korean Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Samcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, the part of the vehicle, which caused the death of the victim under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "the victim of the Act").

2. The phrase "when a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding a victim" as provided in Article 5-3 (1) of the Special Cases of the Aggravated Punishment Act 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, causes the situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Do3315, Apr. 13, 199; 2001Do4771, Feb. 8, 2002, etc.).

그런데 원심이 적법하게 인정한 바와 같이, 피고인은 자동차운전면허 없이 혈중알코올농도 0.172%의 술에 취한 상태에서 포터 화물차를 운전하다가 원심 판시와 같이 교통사고를 야기하고서 그 사고로 차량에서 튕겨져 나와 잠시 정신을 잃고 있던 중 동승한 조윤용이 먼저 의식을 차리고 119 구급차량을 불러달라고 소리를 쳤고, 그사이에 사고 현장 주민들이 신고하여 먼저 도착한 119 구급차량이 피해자를 후송하고, 그 후 의식을 회복한 피고인이 조윤용과 함께 현장에 출동한 경찰관의 '운전자가 누구냐?'는 질문에 대답하지 아니한 채 주민이 호출한 택시를 타고 경찰관이 가 있으라고 한 고려병원으로 가다가 그 도중에 있는 현대의원 앞에 이르러 택시에서 내려 몸에 힘이 없고 술에 취하여 빨리 집으로 돌아가 쉬고 싶다는 생각에서 고향 선배에게 연락하여 그가 가지고 온 차를 타고 집으로 간 다음, 나중에 찾아온 경찰관에게 교통사고 야기 사실을 시인하였다는 것인바, 사실관계가 이러하다면, 피고인이 그 사고로 부상을 입고 사고 현장 주민이 부른 택시로 경찰관의 조치에 따라 병원으로 후송되던 도중 곧바로 집으로 가버리고, 그사이에 경찰에 신고나 연락을 취하지 아니하였다고 하더라도, 그 당시에는 이미 경찰이나 구급차량 등에 의하여 피해자 박봉군에 대한 구호조치가 이루어진 후이므로, 이를 두고 피고인이 피해자를 구호하는 등 도로교통법 제50조 제1항 에 규정된 의무를 이행하기 전에 사고장소를 이탈하여 사고야기자로서 확정될 수 없는 상태를 초래한 경우에 해당한다고 볼 수는 없다.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the above act of the defendant constitutes "when the defendant runs away without taking necessary measures, such as aiding the victim" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, and it has influenced the judgment.

The part of the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents should be reversed. Since the court below recognized the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and punished as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it shall be reversed in its entirety without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)