[1] The meaning of "domination" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act

[2] In a case where a driver of an accident provided data by which the victim can identify himself/herself while leaving the scene of the accident without taking relief measures even though he/she is aware of the fact that the victim was killed, whether it constitutes "when he/she attempted" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

[3] Whether the victim relief measures under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes need to be directly taken (negative)

[4] The case holding that the case constitutes "a case where "a case where" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

[1] "When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she was aware of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, resulting in a situation where

[2] If the driver of an accident escaped from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, even though the driver of the accident provided the data by which his/her identity can be verified to the victim before leaving the scene of the accident, it constitutes "when the driver of the accident escaped without taking measures under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc."

[3] The victim relief measures stipulated in Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes do not necessarily require the victim himself/herself to do so, and even if another person takes relief measures prior to leaving the scene, it is not necessary for him/her to do so.

[4] The case holding that even if a driver of the accident knew the necessity of relief measures for the injured victim due to the traffic accident caused by him, and requested a nearby taxi engineer to transfer the injured victim to the hospital, but the police officer in receipt of the victim's report at the scene of the accident arrived at the scene of the accident due to the victim's refusal to move the victim to the hospital, and the driver of the accident at the scene of the accident left the scene of the accident before the victim's transfer to the hospital and the arrival of the police officer, if the driver of the accident took care of the victim's transfer to the hospital, the driver left the scene of the accident without taking appropriate relief measures against the victim, and even if the driver provided the victim's identity to the passenger prior to leaving the scene of the accident, such act of the defendant constitutes "when the victim escaped without taking such measures as aiding the victim".

[1] Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act / [3] Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 50 (1) of the Road

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5369 decided Jan. 11, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 507) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2563 decided Nov. 5, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 473) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2869 decided Jan. 11, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 504) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4771 decided Feb. 8, 2002 (Gong202Sang, 72), Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4986 decided Nov. 26, 200 (Gong2003Sang, 2086) decided Nov. 29, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2004Do52949 decided Mar. 26, 2019)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Changwon District Court Decision 2003No2087 delivered on December 17, 2003

The part of the judgment of the court below on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division. The remaining appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the violation of the Road Traffic Act

In light of the records, the defendant acknowledged the fact that the defendant left the vehicle of the defendant and the victim after the traffic accident in this case, towing the vehicle of the towing vehicle to the maintenance factory and leaving the accident site. The court below found the defendant not guilty of the violation of Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act among the facts charged in this case on the ground that it is difficult to view that there was a need to take any more measures to ensure smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles as at the time of leaving the accident site, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

A. The court below found that, after the traffic accident in this case, the defendant left the scene of the accident in which the victim left the scene of the accident in order to ask him/her whether he/she would stop immediately after the traffic accident in this case, and caused the victim to move his/her name, place of work, telephone number, etc., and that he/she laid down the number of the defendant's vehicle after the order of the defendant was issued by him/her, and that the defendant was unable to move the victim to the taxi at the scene of the accident in order to promptly transfer the victim to Kim Young-ju, who is a taxi engineer, to the KO Young-dong Hospital, but the defendant reported the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case to the police station while the victim would not have any clerical error before the police, and if the police officer arrived at the scene of the accident in this case, the victim did not already leave the scene of the accident, and the defendant did not immediately leave the scene of the accident in order for the defendant to be found to have received the victim's medical treatment since he/she did not immediately changed his/she to the hospital.

B. Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the accident site prior to the performance of the duty provided for in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim although the driver knew that the victim was killed or injured, resulting in a situation where the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do2563, Jan. 5, 2001; 2002Do5748, Mar. 25, 2003, etc.). Thus, if the driver of the accident escaped from the accident site prior to the performance of the duty provided for in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and aiding the victim despite the driver's awareness of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, it constitutes 90Do1696, Feb. 16, 2005, etc., 209).

On the other hand, the victim relief measures stipulated in the above legal provisions are not necessarily required by the victim himself/herself, and the victim victim relief measures cannot be required by the person under his/her own control, or by another person prior to leaving the site. However, as in the case of this case, the driver of the accident recognized the necessity of relief measures for the victim who suffered from the traffic accident caused by him/her, and requested the victim to transfer the victim to the hospital, but the police officer in receipt of the victim's report at the scene of the accident at the scene of the accident, and the victim's refusal to move the victim to the hospital after the police officer arrived at the scene of the accident, and the driver left the scene of the accident before the victim's hospital transfer and the police officer's arrival at the scene of the accident. Thus, even if the victim was transferred to the hospital after leaving the scene of the accident, the driver, even if he/she could have known his/her identity to the victim before leaving the scene of the accident, the driver's act does not constitute "the defendant's act of providing the victim's assistance".

C. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on escape under the above provision of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)