(영문) 대법원 2020.2.6.선고 2019도3225 판결

The judgment of the original court shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Gangnam Branch Court Panel Division of the Chuncheon District Court.

Reasons

The grounds for appeal are determined.

1. The grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor;

A. The purpose of Article 54(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act is to secure the safety and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles on the road, not to restore the victim’s damage. In this case, measures to be taken by a driver are to be adequately taken according to specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and measures to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002; 2002Do4452, Feb. 1, 202).

B. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the following circumstances are revealed.

1) On May 13, 2018, around 09:40, Defendant 1 driven a dump truck with B 25 tons B and proceeded along with D-lanes from the front side of C apartment, the two-lanes of the two-lanes. Defendant 2, in the process of changing the said dump truck with the front side of the said dump truck at the time, did not stop or stop the said dump truck to the left side of the Furp truck at the time, and did not cause any harm to the victim’s dump truck (hereinafter “the instant accident”). Defendant 3 did not stop or stop the said dump vehicle to the extent that there was any danger of harm to the victim’s dump vehicle immediately after the instant accident, such as sumping the body of the victim, to the extent that it was necessary for the victim’s driver to suffer damage to the victim’s dump and the victim’s dump in the instant accident.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not seem to have a duty to prevent and eliminate traffic hazards and obstacles, and reversed the judgment of the first instance that found the charge of violating the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed Measures) guilty and acquitted the Defendant on the grounds of the judgment. In such a judgment of the lower court, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed Measures after Accidents), thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant

For the same reasons as the judgment of the court below, the victims suffered injury due to the accident in this case, and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the victims of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among the facts charged in this case.In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating the logic of the judgment of the court below and the rule of experience.

3. Scope of reversal

Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment of the court below which violated the Road Traffic Act should be reversed. Since the part of the judgment of the court below which was found guilty and ordinary concurrences with the part of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.