특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the accident in the facts charged of this case (hereinafter “the accident in this case”) that was previously recovered after the victim’s driver’s car was shocked to the right-hand set day is not an occupational breach of the defendant’s duty of care, but an accident occurred independently due to the victim’s overwork and the reason such as failure to drive, etc., not an occupational breach of the defendant’s duty of care, and is not a substantial relation with the victim.
Even if the accident of this case was committed in a state where the defendant did not recognize the fact by negligence at that time, there was a criminal intent to escape.
It is difficult to see it.
However, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous as a matter of law.
2. Determination
A. Even though the defendant's act did not cause the result of the victim's thought or directly, if the result of the victim's thought is combined with other indirect causes generated from the accident and caused the result of the victim's thought (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do2082, Jun. 10, 2016). In addition, the term "when the victim escaped without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, etc." under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, "when the victim escaped without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person despite the driver's awareness of the fact that the injured person was killed, it brings about a situation where it is impossible to determine who caused the accident by leaving the accident site prior to performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and even if the accident occurred, it does not necessarily require the awareness that the injured person's.