2017Do15651 A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Evacuation Vehicles)

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

(c) Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

A

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 2017 - 1526 Decided September 7, 2017

July 11, 2019

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the part concerning the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the measures not taken after the accident) is as follows.

On December 16, 2016: Around 51, the Defendant driven a Bribero Freight truck (hereinafter referred to as “diversing vehicle”) and went back to the management office at the entrance of the shop, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, bypassing the roads adjacent to 1, c apartment to the management office at the entrance of the commercial building. The Defendant neglected his/her duty of care in late-time care, and is proceeding along with the Defendant’s cargo vehicle behind the direction of the Defendant’s course.

The part of the left side of the DW car(hereinafter referred to as the "victim") driven by the victim was taken into account as the part behind the sea-going vehicle.

The Defendant, by the foregoing occupational negligence, destroyed the damaged vehicle to be in excess of KRW 4,621,21,210, and immediately stopped and escaped without taking necessary measures.

B. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The reasons are as follows.

Although there have been a large amount of estimated repair costs for damaged vehicles, the extent of actual damage caused by the collision has not been scattered on the road, and the victim has suffered relatively minor injuries. The victim only contacted the insurance company and reported to the police, but did not conceal the defendant.

The place of a traffic accident is an apartment complex where the traffic of vehicles is driven slowly without frequent traffic, and the driver's view is well secured and the risk of the second accident was extremely low. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that there is a need to take measures to ensure smooth traffic by removing the risks and obstacles caused by the traffic accident in this case.

2. Supreme Court Decision

A. Article 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 14356, Dec. 2, 2016; hereinafter “former Road Traffic Act”) aims to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on roads and ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic. The drivers who have caused a traffic accident shall take measures to the extent normally required in light of the sound form depending on the specific circumstances, such as the details of the accident and the degree of damage. The drivers of the vehicles who have caused the traffic accident shall, without notifying the drivers of their personal information or contact details, immediately deviate from the scene after the accident without notifying them of the traffic accident, not only drive the vehicle itself but also take necessary measures in that the vehicle might cause other traffic hazards and obstacles to the other traffic by driving by a victim anticipated to stop or drive the vehicle. The same applies to the case where the damaged vehicles suffered minor physical damage due to the accident, and even if the wave is not scattered on the road, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1654, Mar. 26, 20197).

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following circumstances are revealed.

The Defendant caused a traffic accident by negligence in driving, and the repair cost was damaged to the extent of 4,621,210 won, and the victim was hospitalized for one week due to the injury of the climatic clif, etc. The victim suffered from the injury of the climatic clif, etc. Around the time of the accident, the Defendant immediately driven the vehicle and immediately went off the scene without taking any measures after the accident. According to the victim’s police statement, according to the victim’s face, the Defendant was deemed to drink at the time of the Defendant’s face, and even according to the Defendant’s statement, it was apprehended that the Defendant would be punished for driving without a license during the suspension period. The victim was unable to drive the vehicle due to the damage of the driver’s seat until the Defendant escaped, and the number of the injured vehicle was not confirmed.

C. Examining these circumstances in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, the following determination is possible.

The Defendant, even after causing a traffic accident, was driving a melting vehicle without taking any measures immediately after the accident, and was off the scene. Although the victim did not scam the Defendant, it is difficult to avoid the possibility that the Defendant attempted to scam the Defendant in light of the content of the accident, degree of damage, and the offender’s behavior, etc. In order to avoid the police officer, etc., the Defendant was able to not only drive the scam by the Defendant, but also stop or drive the scam by the victim’s scam, which might cause another traffic danger and hindrance to other traffic. The circumstances such as the fact that the scam was not scattered on the road, the victim did not scam on the road, and the location where the accident occurred was a apartment complex, and the scam was well secured, cannot affect the aforementioned judgment. The Defendant who caused a traffic accident did not take any necessary measures to escape pursuant to Article 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act.

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed Measures after Accidents) as it is, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unconvicted

3. Conclusion

The part of the judgment of the court below on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (after-accidents) should be reversed. Since the remaining part of the court below found guilty and the ordinary concurrent crimes, the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety.

Therefore, the lower judgment is 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 Lee Dong-won

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Min Min-young