Whether a sentence of innocence should be rendered in cases where a person was indicted for a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes but escape is not recognized, but only the

The crime provided for in Article 5-3 (Aggravated Punishment of Drivers) (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established when the driver of the relevant vehicle who commits the crime provided for in Article 268 of the Criminal Act does not take measures provided for in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured party and aiding the injured party, and the crime of occupational injury or death is included in the above crime. Thus, even if the crime of occupational injury is not recognized as a result of the trial in case a public prosecution is instituted as a result of the above crime, it is not necessary to render a judgment of conviction if the crime of occupational injury or death is recognized as a result

Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 3(2) of the Act on

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

A co-inspector;

Daejeon High Court Decision 94No133 delivered on July 28, 1994

The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance are reversed. The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that there is no evidence to acknowledge the escape among the facts charged in this case, which are raised as a crime under Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. However, as to the facts charged of violation of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents concerning Injury by Occupational Negligence, prior to the institution of the prosecution in this case, the victim already expressed his intention not to have the punishment of the defendant, which is in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and eventually, the facts charged of violation of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents fall under the case where the prosecution procedure becomes null and void in violation of the provisions of the Act, and thereby, the public prosecution shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as

In comparison with the records, the court below is just in holding that the act of escape among the facts charged in the case constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove the crime, and there is no ground for misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence.

However, the crime provided for in Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the above crime) is established when the driver of the relevant vehicle who committed the crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the crime of occupational injury and death) runs away without taking measures provided for in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim. Thus, the crime of occupational injury and death is included in the above crime. Thus, even if the crime of occupational injury and death is not acknowledged in the case of the above crime, if the crime of occupational injury and death is acknowledged as a result of the trial, the judgment of conviction should be judged, and if there is no right to prosecute, the decision of acquittal should be made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do1283, Dec. 7, 190; 89Do2360, Mar. 13, 190). Thus, the court below should have reversed the judgment below's judgment and its judgment of first instance should be dismissed, and it should be justified, despite its conclusion.

Of the facts charged in this case against the defendant, it constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove the crime as to the defendant's escape without taking measures such as injuring the victim's highest south line and providing relief as stated in its reasoning, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment below. As to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which caused the victim's injury as stated in its reasoning, the record reveals that the defendant already expressed his/her intent not to have the defendant punished on July 8, 1993, which was before the prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, the prosecution of this case against the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)