Violation of the Traffic Act (Measures Not to be Taken after Accidents)

Housing Daegu and Seogu District

Reference domicile Daegu Dong-gu

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2,00,000 won. If the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

To order the defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

1) At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant left the scene of the instant accident without recognizing the occurrence of the instant traffic accident as he/she had emotionally disturbed due to the sudden heritage of his/her wife on the same day. As such, there was no intention for each of the crimes.

2) The instant traffic accident is an accident that has contacted a sea-going vehicle with a damaged vehicle, and thus, it cannot be said that the victim suffered an injury to the extent that the victim would need relief, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

3) Since there is no fact that the instant traffic accident caused damage to a vehicle at the accident site due to the instant traffic accident, or interfere with the operation of other vehicles, such as the occurrence of a vehicle-wise phenomenon, it cannot be deemed that there was a need to take measures to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles, and thus, the instant traffic accident does not constitute an unfair sentencing.

The punishment of the court below against the defendant (the fine of 4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on intention

The court below duly adopted and examined the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant continued to stop without stopping the Defendant at a speed of about 40 to 50 kilometers from the date and place indicated in the facts charged of the instant case, ③ the Defendant received damaged vehicles parked on three lanes in the course of changing the vehicle from two lanes to three lanes in order to circumvent the vehicle while driving the vehicle at a speed of about 40 to 50 kilometers, causing the instant traffic accident. ② The instant traffic accident was caused by the front part of the damaged vehicle, and the damaged vehicle was damaged to be repaired by 507,353 won, such as exchange, and the damaged vehicle was damaged by the victim, and the victim got a little shock, and the Defendant continued to drive the vehicle without stopping the vehicle after the instant traffic accident, and the Defendant was aware that the damaged vehicle was driving the vehicle and its headlight, and the Defendant did not know that the damaged vehicle was driving the vehicle and the damaged vehicle was driving the vehicle, and the Defendant did not know that the damaged vehicle was driving the vehicle, and the victim was driving the vehicle in front of the new vehicle.

B. Determination as to the establishment of injury

1) "When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" means a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed because the driver of the accident escaped from the scene of the accident before he/she performed his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, although the driver recognizes the fact that the victim was injured, such as aiding the victim, etc. Therefore, in order for the crime of escape to be established, the result of his/her thought must arise. In order for the crime of escape to be established, annoyed crime to the extent that it is merely dangerous for the victim to life or body or that it cannot be assessed as "injury" under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act does not need to be treated, and thus it is difficult to deem that the crime has infringed health conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do3910, Feb.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the traffic accident of this case was committed by the defendant while changing the two lanes from the two lanes to the three lanes. According to the photographs showing the shocked parts of the damaged vehicle and the harmful vehicle, the degree of shock seems not to have serious. ② The victim was driving the damaged vehicle directly at the time of the accident immediately after the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case, following the harming the damaged vehicle, and the victim did not mention the degree of damage caused by the accident in front of the new cancer elementary school. ③ The victim did not inquire the police station before the apartment of the defendant living, or the vehicle number before the police station after the report, and the victim was returned to the hospital without receiving the victim’s face and the vehicle number on the day of the accident, ④ The victim did not receive the victim’s oral examination and treatment, other than the victim’s oral examination and treatment permit on the day of the accident in this case.

In light of the fact that natural therapy could have been naturally cured, 6th day from August 22, 201 to December 27, 201, the victim was voluntarily hospitalized, and the treatment received by the victim was merely administered, physical therapy, etc., 23 days and 25 days of being hospitalized, and the victim’s age and health conditions at the time of the instant accident, and the victim’s attitude after the instant accident, etc., it is difficult to deem that the victim suffered bodily injury under the Criminal Act due to the instant traffic accident. Considering the other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize that the victim suffered bodily injury due to the instant accident, damage to the life function, or change of health condition, etc. Accordingly, the charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Dok Vehicles) premised on the victim’s need for relief measures constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, but the court below erred in the misapprehension of the facts charged, and therefore, found the Defendant guilty in this part of the charges.

C. Determination as to the necessity of measures after an accident

1) The purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on roads to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, not to restore victims’ damage. In such a case, measures to be taken by drivers are to be adequately taken according to specific circumstances, such as the content of accidents and the degree of damage, and measures to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2001, Jun. 28, 2002).

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant was aware of the damaged vehicle parked in three lanes in the course of changing the lane from two lanes to three lanes among the three lanes, ② the damaged vehicle caused the instant traffic accident by its repair cost to 507,353 won, and the Defendant continued without stopping immediately after the accident, and the victim concealed a harming vehicle more than 1m, and the Defendant was found to have failed to stop on the road, even though it was difficult for the Defendant to prevent the damaged vehicle from spreading in the direction of traffic at a distance above the new elementary school, the Defendant did not immediately drive the damaged vehicle again, resulting in a minor traffic accident bypassing the damaged vehicle, and the Defendant did not immediately stop the vehicle at a distance above the new 4m flow, and the Defendant did not have any physical obstacle to the traffic accident under the provisions of Article 1 of the Road Traffic Act, and the Defendant did not have any physical obstacle to the traffic accident under the provisions of Article 4 of the Road Traffic Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Dok-in Vehicle) among the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and should be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the court below judged the guilty guilty and sentenced the punishment under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (dok-in Vehicle) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (dok-in Vehicle) after treating it as an ordinary concurrent crime. Thus, the court below omitted the

Criminal History Office

The defendant is a person driving SM7 motor vehicles.

On August 22:40, 201, the Defendant driving the said car on front of the Daegu North Korean Agricultural Cooperative, Daegu North Korea-gu, Daegu, and driving the said car along two-lanes in the direction of the port side distance from the direction of the port side distance, while driving the said car, and instead driving the two-lanes in the direction of the port side distance, the Defendant was the victim’s owner who was driving the three-lane course due to occupational negligence in driving the car, and was led to the front part of the said SM7 car.

The Defendant, through occupational negligence above, destroyed the car repair cost to be KRW 507,353, and escaped without immediately stopping and taking necessary measures.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the victim;

1. Each police statement of the victim;

1. A traffic accident occurrence report;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. Written estimate;

1. Photographss of each damaged vehicle, photographs of the damaged vehicle, and on-site photographs;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, selection of fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The summary of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Dok-in Vehicle) among the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, while driving a SM7 vehicle as stated in the criminal facts in the above criminal facts, had the victim driveed by occupational negligence, and had the victim suffered bodily injury, such as salt dump, etc. in the trend that requires approximately two weeks medical treatment, and escaped without immediately stopping the vehicle and without taking measures such as providing relief to the victim.

However, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as stated in the above 2-B, and thus, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or as long as it is found guilty of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (not taking measures after the accident) in the judgment of a common competition relation, the judgment of not guilty shall not be

Although the defendant denies a part of the crime, the reason for sentencing is that the defendant is the primary offender, the damage caused by the traffic accident of this case is relatively minor, the defendant agreed to do so before the prosecution, and all other circumstances, including the circumstances of the crime of this case and the nature of the crime of this case, the age of the defendant, character and conduct, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, shall be determined as ordered.

Judges

Judges