[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반][공1974.12.1.(501),8079]
"When a driver of relevant vehicle who has committed a crime provided for in Article 268 of the Criminal Act" provided for in Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes runs away without taking measures provided for in Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim.
For the purpose of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the term “when the driver of the vehicle concerned who has committed the crime as prescribed in Article 268 of the Criminal Act runs away without taking any measures as prescribed in Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim” means not only the cases where the driver of the vehicle concerned, who has committed the crime under Article 268 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, is aware of the casualties caused by the traffic accident at an appropriate place, but also the cases where the driver, etc., takes any post-measures such as taking emergency treatment by transporting it to a nearby
Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc., and Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act
Defendant
Attorney Hah-soo (NN)
Daegu High Court Decision 74No186 delivered on June 20, 1974
The appeal is dismissed.
70 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. 원심판결이 유지한 제1심판결이 들고 있는 증거들을 기록에 대조 검토하니 동 판시와 같은 사실 즉 피고인이 운전수의 의무를 태만히 한 과실로 길을 왼쪽에서 오론쪽으로 건너가던 피해자를 피고인 운전차량의 왼쪽 후엔다 부분과 앞유리창 부분으로 드리받아 도로중앙선을 넘어 약2미터 떨어진 반대차선의 1차선으로 튕겨 쓸어지게 하여 뒤이어 반대방향에서 달려오던 번호미상의 크라운승용차에 치이게하므로써 그에게 내장파열상등을 입게 하였음에도 즉시 위 피해자를 구호하는 등 필요한 조치를 취하지 아니한채 도주하므로써 피해자로 하여금 위 상처로 인하여 그자리에서 곧 사망케 한 사실을 수긍할 수있고 그 증거취사나 사실인정과정에 무슨 위법있음을 발견할 수없으며 피해자의 과실 및 위 설시 번호미상의 크라운차운전자의 과실이 경합되었다 하여 피고인의 책임이 면제된다고 할 수 없으므로 이런 취지에서 한 원판결의 판단은 정당하므로 이 점에 관한 피고인이나 변호인의 상고논지는 이유없으며,
2. For the purpose of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the term "if the driver of the vehicle in question who committed the crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act runs away without taking any measures under Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc." means that the driver of the vehicle in question runs away without taking any measures under Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as informing the victim of the occurrence of the traffic accident at an appropriate place, or transporting it to an adjacent hospital for emergency treatment, etc., as well as that a series of follow-up measures such as taking any measures, such as removing the obstacles on the road that occurred from the accident and seeking traffic safety, and therefore, the defendant goes away from the site of the accident without any intention to take such measures as relief, etc., so long as the defendant goes away from the site to report the occurrence of the traffic accident, the defendant's so-called escape without taking any action under Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act. Therefore, the first instance judgment is justified and there is no error in this regard.
3. The provision of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that an unreasonable sentencing decision cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal on the instant case, and there is no ground for appeal.
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.
Justices Kim Young-soo (Presiding Justice)