특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the summary of the reasons for appeal against the victim, the victim suffered an injury to the hye certificate requiring medical treatment for about one week due to the accident in this case. Considering the fact that the diagnosis date is the following day of the accident in this case, the circumstance that the victim suffered an injury, such as assault by a third party, etc. between the accident time and the time of the diagnosis is not revealed, and there are no circumstances to suspect the credibility of the medical certificate issued, the probative value of the diagnosis in this case cannot be rejected, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had suffered an injury to the victim due to the traffic accident, and that the defendant escaped without immediately stopping and taking necessary measures, but the judgment of the court below acquitted the victim of the charge in this case on the ground that the result of the injury did not occur.
2. Determination
A. "When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting a victim" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means a situation in which it is impossible to identify who caused the accident as the person who left the accident site prior to the performance of the duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim although the driver knew that the victim was killed and injured. Thus, if the crime of escape is established, the result of the death must occur to the victim. In order to establish the crime of escape, annoyed situation that is extremely extremely high to the extent that it is impossible to treat the victim as a mere danger to life or body or as an "injury" under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act is not necessary, and therefore it is difficult to view that the situation of health was impaired (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do3910, Feb. 25, 2000).
The court below held.