[2] The case holding that it is difficult to conclude that the victims of the accident suffered injuries to the extent of receiving relief in full view of the speed and direction of the progress of the vehicle and the damaged vehicle at the time of the accident, the degree of shock by the collision, the degree of shock by the collision, the injury by the victims of the accident, and the degree and degree of the accident, etc.

Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under the provisions of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc., despite the driver's awareness of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, the driver of the accident refers to a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed because he escaped from the accident site prior to performing his duty under the provisions of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc. However, in light of the legislative intent and legal interest and protection of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the driver of the accident cannot be punished for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes even if he escaped from the accident site prior to performing his duty under the provisions of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding the victim, etc.

Examining the judgment below in light of the records in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to conclude that the victims suffered injuries to the extent of receiving relief from the defendant, etc. due to the accident in this case, taking into account the following: the speed and direction of the vehicle driven by the defendant at the time of the accident in this case and the cargo loaded by the victims; the degree of the collision level and degree; the victim's injury to the victim due to the accident in this case; especially the accident in this case, the victims who suffered injuries such as dynasium and dynasium were divided into normal dialogue with the defendant immediately after the accident in this case; and the police officers dispatched to the accident scene specifically explained about the situation of the accident. Furthermore, it is difficult to conclude that the victims suffered injuries to the extent of receiving relief from the defendant, etc. due to the accident in this case. Furthermore, the defendant already notified the witness and victims of his identity in detail and temporarily left the accident site after arrival at the accident site; thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no possibility of confirming the person who caused the traffic accident in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)