[1] Purport of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the degree of measures to be taken by an accident driver

[2] The case holding that the crime of violation of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is established in the event a harming vehicle runs away without taking necessary measures, such as immediately stopping, even though the physical damage of the damaged vehicle caused by a traffic accident is minor and the scam was not scattered on the road

[1] The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on roads to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic, not to recover victims’ damages. In this case, measures to be taken by drivers are to be adequately taken according to specific circumstances, such as the content of accidents and the degree of damage, and measures to the extent that such measures are ordinarily required in light of sound form.

[2] In a case where a driver of a vehicle that enters a four-lane road from which the central separation cost is installed along the farm road enters the road as it is without checking whether or not there is a proceeding vehicle by reducing the speed or temporarily stopping the vehicle, the case holding that it cannot be deemed that the driver of a vehicle that runs along the road runs away from the direction of the proceeding and the opposite part of the damaged vehicle by driving along the road cannot be deemed as taking necessary measures in the event of a traffic accident, even though the physical damage of the damaged vehicle caused by the accident is insignificant and not scattered on the road, even if it was not scattered on the road

[1] Articles 54 (1) and 148 of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Articles 54 (1) and 148 of the Road Traffic Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4452 Decided October 22, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2926) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6547 Decided September 28, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3078 Decided October 9, 2008

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 2008No971 Decided January 15, 2009

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among the facts charged in this case by taking account of the evidence presented in the court below. In light of the records, the court below's measures are just and there is no violation of rules of evidence

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (after the accident) is as follows: “The Defendant, at around 14:08 on Nov. 25, 2007, by driving a rocketing car (vehicle No. 1 omitted) and entered the road from the Geumcheon-gu, Sincheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu. In such a case, the Defendant, who is engaged in driving duty, has a duty of care to confirm and safely enter the vehicle at a speed reduction or temporary stop, without neglecting the duty of care to confirm whether the vehicle is being driven at a speed and to safely enter the vehicle. However, the Defendant failed to stop the (vehicle No. 2 omitted) of the victim Non-Indicted 1 (Seoul, 44) driving (vehicle No. 1 omitted) with the front right-hand part of the driver’s non-indicted 1 (Seoul, 44) driving on the front right-hand part of the motor vehicle without the driver’s license.

In regard to this, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the danger of the accident on the ground that, in this case, the victim non-indicted 1 moved the damaged vehicle to the right side in order to facilitate the passage of the vehicle after the accident, it cannot be deemed that it was necessary for the defendant to take measures to prevent and eliminate the traffic danger and obstacle caused by the accident and ensure smooth traffic, and even if the defendant is found to have increased the risk of the accident by driving the road over the opposite side of the road where the central separation cost was installed and going beyond the speed of 589,120 won to the right side of the damaged vehicle, it is so minor that the part of the damaged vehicle was destroyed to the extent that the operation of the vehicle was not obstructed, and the two vehicles did not move to the right side or lose the power to view it as a way scheduled for the progress of the vehicle at the beginning and the method of the accident itself, and it cannot be viewed as a measure to increase the risk of the accident after the accident.

The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on roads to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, not to restore damage to victims. In this case, measures to be taken by drivers should be appropriately taken according to specific circumstances, such as the content of accidents and the degree of damage, and measures to the extent that is normally required in light of sound form (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3078, Oct. 9, 2008, etc.).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the accident place is a four-lane road set up in the center of the traffic separation, and the accident time was low. At the time of the accident, the victim Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3 et al. was on board the damaged vehicle. The defendant's vehicle was at the same time and at the same time stopped, and the victim Nonindicted 1 stopped on the right side while driving the damaged vehicle, but did not interfere with the progress of the vehicle, and the victim Nonindicted 1 stopped on the right side, and then the vehicle left off from the right side, and the defendant 1 left the vehicle. However, the defendant did not get off the road without his own vehicle, driving the road over the opposite direction and the opposite direction of the damaged vehicle, driving the vehicle in the front direction, and driving the vehicle over the direction of the accident using the crosswalk, and driving the vehicle in the front direction, and the victim reported the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, and even if the defendant did not immediately suffer any danger to the traffic accident, it is determined that the defendant did not immediately stop the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed (each of the facts charged is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a single sentence is to be imposed on the whole, and the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in its entirety) 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.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)