특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not know the fact that the Defendant caused a traffic accident and did not know that he had inflicted an injury on the victim; and (b) the Defendant did not suffer an injury to the extent that the victim requires relief due to the instant traffic accident; and (c) thus, the Defendant’
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
(a) The phrase “when the driver runs away without taking the measures provided for in Article 50(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as aiding the victim” provided for in Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to determine the assertion that the victim had no intention to escape refers to the case where the driver of the accident, despite his knowledge of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty provided for in Article
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do375, May 12, 1998; 99Do2869, Dec. 7, 1999). Moreover, “the degree of perception of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident” as referred to in this context does not necessarily need to be determined, and dolusence is sufficient.
(1) In the event that a criminal intent or situation is recognized while recognizing an act that constitutes a constituent element of a crime, the subjective element of a crime can only be proven by means of proving an indirect or circumstantial fact that has a substantial relation with the criminal intent or perception of the crime, and what constitutes an indirect fact that has considerable relevance to the criminal intent or perception of the crime, in light of the nature of the object.