[1] The meaning of "when a person 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

[2] The case holding that the defendant's act does not constitute an escape without taking measures such 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 Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5748 decided Mar. 25, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1113), Supreme Court Decision 2004Do250 decided Mar. 12, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 679)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2004No417 delivered on July 21, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

1. The phrase "when a driver of an accident runs away without taking such measures as provided by Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim" as provided by Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to the case where the driver of an accident does not take the measures as provided by Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act despite his knowledge of the fact 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 because he escaped from the place where the accident occurred, and "measures as provided by Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act" includes the case where the driver expresses his identity to the person related to the traffic accident such as the victim or police officer (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5748, Mar. 25, 2003; 2004Do250, Mar. 12, 2004, etc.)

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and determined that the defendant did not take measures under Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes but did not take measures under Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, taking full account of all the circumstances, including the following: the defendant informed the nurse of the vehicle number of the vehicle of this case owned by the police and the defendant's identity was relatively easily confirmed; the defendant sent the vehicle number of the vehicle of this case to the taxi after the accident of this case to the hospital immediately after the accident of this case, the victim was born to the hospital, and the victim was entering the hospital to the hospital, and the victim was informed of the victim's personal information, date and time and time of the accident, place, and the vehicle number of the defendant, and then the defendant did not have any condition to determine who caused the accident because he left the scene before performing his duty provided for in Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on escape under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)