도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) is that the victims were faced with the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle while driving the Oral Sea, and the Defendant did not cause a traffic accident.
In addition, there was no need to take relief measures because the victims did not have been injured by traffic accidents or the damage caused by the Oral Seabs.
In addition, the defendant did not have a criminal intent to commit a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act following the accident since he/she voluntarily stopped and checked the state of damage and left the site.
2. The judgment below also asserted the same purport, and the court below held that the duty to take relief measures when a traffic accident occurred as provided by Article 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 10382, Jul. 23, 2010; hereinafter the same) is imposed on the driver, etc. in order to promptly take necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the victims of the traffic accident, when the driver, etc. is killed or injured or damaged by the traffic of a vehicle. As a result of the traffic accident, the duty is imposed on the driver of the vehicle who caused the traffic accident, regardless of whether the traffic accident was intentional or negligent, and it is reasonable to interpret that the duty is a duty imposed on the driver of the vehicle in question, who caused the traffic accident, regardless of whether the accident occurred with intention or negligence, and even if there is no reason attributable to the occurrence of the accident, the above duty cannot be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1731, May 24, 2002).
In light of the facts charged, the court below found the defendant guilty. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined and the reasoning of the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and otherwise, the court below's judgment is just.