[2] The purpose of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the contents and degree of measures to be taken by an accident driver pursuant to the Road Traffic Act

1. In light of the legislative purport of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the protected legal interests thereof, in a case where it is not deemed necessary for an accident driver to take measures under the provisions of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as providing relief to the victim, in full view of the details and contents of the accident, the age and degree of the victim, and the circumstances after the accident, etc., the accident driver shall not be deemed to violate the provisions of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes even if the accident driver actually leaves the place of accident without taking measures such as aiding the victim. In addition, the purpose of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and remove traffic risks and obstacles that occur on the road to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic, not to recover the physical damage of the victim. In this case, measures to be taken by the accident driver shall be taken according to the specific circumstances such as the content and degree of damage caused by the accident, etc., and the degree of measures normally required in light of sound form.

2. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the violation of Article 5-3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that leaving the place where an accident occurred prior to the performance of the duty provided in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victims, even though it is aware that the Defendant was necessary to take relief measures against the victims of the instant accident, falls under “abdoing” as stipulated in Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and that the Defendant

3. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence adopted by the court below, the defendant: (1) was driving his vehicle on April 14, 2012 at a speed of about 5 km for victims, and caused the instant accident where the victim non-indicted 1 driver's vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "victim's vehicle") was sent to the right side of the front vehicle due to negligence in the course of performing his duties while driving the vehicle at a speed of about 5 km; (2) the defendant requested the victim non-indicted 1 to move the damaged vehicle to the right side of the vehicle after stopping the vehicle and leaving the vehicle on the road; (3) the victim non-indicted 1 and the victim non-indicted 2 and the passenger, who was parked on the right side of the road; and (4) the defendant again reported the accident to the police station's diagnosis and treatment of the accident; and (4) the defendant again left the scene of the accident and left the scene of the accident.

B. Examining such factual background and the details of the instant accident, the age and degree of injury of the victims, the details of conversations between the Defendant and the victims at the scene of the accident, the details of the movement and parking of the vehicle and the damaged vehicle at the time of the accident, etc. in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, was in need of taking measures to rescue the victims or to prevent and remove traffic risks and obstacles, and to ensure safe and smooth traffic.

Therefore, even if the defendant temporarily leaves the place of accident as above after the accident of this case, it cannot be punished as a violation of Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and a violation of Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)