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

The purpose of Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic hazards and obstacles and ensure safe and smooth traffic by promptly taking necessary measures, such as removing obstacles caused by traffic accidents, and it does not aim at restoring physical damage to victims. In such cases, measures to be taken by drivers on the site shall be appropriately taken according to the circumstances at the scene of the accident, such as the details of the accident and the degree and degree of the damage, and the degree of such measures shall be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1292, Oct. 12, 2007, etc.).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the instant traffic accident on June 15, 2012 is examined.

18: At a about 50-lane 50-lane 10-lane 5-lane 5-lane 5-lane 5-lane, the vehicle was driven by Defendant’s vehicle while parked, and the vehicle was driven along the speed of 30 km to 40 km through the right side of the damaged vehicle and was damaged so that the repair cost is required to be 520,000 won. The degree of the damage was minor and there was no danger or obstacle in driving the road because the wave caused by the collision did not have been scattered on the road. ② The Defendant confirmed the state of the damaged vehicle between 3 and 4 minutes after the instant traffic accident, and C was also the driver of the damaged vehicle. ③ The Defendant and C moved the police vehicle to the road surface to secure safe and smooth traffic, and the Defendant was informed that the vehicle was moved to the road by the vehicle at the time of the change to the road at the time of the accident, and the vehicle was not known to C by the vehicle at the time of the change to the road at the time of the accident.

Examining the aforementioned circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, such as the course and contents of the instant traffic accident, the damaged passenger vehicle’s damaged part and degree, the circumstances after the instant traffic accident, in particular, there were no scatterings at the scene of the instant traffic accident, and immediately after the accident, the damaged passenger vehicle was moved to the road, and C took the vehicle number of the Defendant’s vehicle immediately after the accident occurred, and the vehicle overlaps with the Defendant’s vehicle number during the time of leaving the port, and the vehicle was in front, and was frightened to the Defendant, and reported the accident to the police immediately, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was necessary to take measures to prevent and eliminate the traffic danger and obstacle caused by the accident and to ensure smooth traffic. Thus, the Defendant cannot be punished for a violation of Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, by leaving the scene of the accident without taking any particular measures.

Nevertheless, without clear grounds, the lower court determined that C might have caused additional traffic hazards and obstacles to the traffic, and thus, determined that the Defendant could not be deemed to have taken necessary measures as prescribed in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act with respect to the instant traffic accident, and found the Defendant guilty of the violation of Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. Scope of reversal

Although the defendant appealed only against the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not taking a measure after an accident), as long as the part is reversed, the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Egressing Vehicles) in relation to the ordinary concurrence with the defendant should also be reversed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is entirely reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Park Poe-young

Chief Justice Kim Shin-chul