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

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

On February 14, 2016, the Defendant driven a high-speed car around 10:10, and driven a high-speed car in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S., a long-distance intersection in the middle-gu, U.S. P., U.S., the Defendant proceeded at a non-speed speed depending on one-lane between the four-lanes from the ductal surface to the ductal surface.

At this point, the vehicle line and signal are installed, and the victim D (54 years old) prior to the Defendant was driving a car in E-high speed. In such a case, the driver was obliged to pay a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving the vehicle, maintaining the safety distance with the preceding vehicle, and accurately operating the steering and steering system.

Nevertheless, as the Defendant neglected to stop the car driven by the victim due to negligence in front of the week, it was found that the car driven by the victim was stopped and operated rapidly, but the Defendant did not avoid it, and did not take necessary measures such as providing relief to the victim, and did not immediately stop the car, even though the vehicle driven by the victim was damaged to require approximately KRW 424,40,00 for about two weeks of medical treatment by collision with the victim’s vehicle behind the vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Reports on the occurrence of traffic accidents and reports on traffic accidents;

1. Each photograph;

1. Registers of driver's licenses, chassiss, mandatory insurance, and verification personnel who have purchased insurance;

1. A report on investigation;

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

The defendant understood that the victim was involved in dealing with the accident immediately after the accident, and that the victim was able to be injured by the defendant, and that he left the scene, and that the victim did not have an injury to the extent of need for relief due to the accident.

According to the above evidence, after the accident, the victim requested insurance treatment to the defendant, but the defendant stated that "I would not know about the insurance treatment," and the victim made a report on the victim 112 after leaving his/her own vehicle, and the defendant reported the victim 112 again in his/her own vehicle to the victim 112. During the accident, the defendant reported the victim's glass window to the victim 112, and the police again left the scene without taking any particular measures before the error, and the victim received injection, depression, and physical therapy due to the injury in the judgment. In light of the fact that the victim requested insurance treatment to the defendant, but the defendant did not cooperate with the defendant, it is difficult to view that the victim was able to leave the police, so it is recognized that the victim left the scene with the victim's knowledge of the fact due to the traffic accident, but the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 5-3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the occupation of a measure not taken after an accident)

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act