2011Do15172 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Evacuation Vehicles), Do

Article 10 (Measures Taken to be Taken after Accidents)

A person shall be appointed.

Residential ancient cities

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 2011No1542 Decided October 27, 2011

March 29, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (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, "when the driver of the accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, despite the driver's awareness of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident, the driver of the accident leaves the accident site without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and brings about a situation in which it is impossible to identify the person who caused the accident. Thus, if the driver of the accident was aware of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident, even though the driver of the accident took measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding the victim, the driver of the accident does not have to take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding the victim, or he does not have to take measures under the control of another person (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do14, Mar. 212, 20014, 2001).

3. Where the driver of an accident asked his/her Dong to handle the accident simply and asked his/her Dong to do so, and the passenger did not actually take relief measures, and where he/she deserts the accident site before another third party takes relief measures such as transfer of hospital to the victim, barring any special circumstance, the driver of the accident cannot be deemed to have taken measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim before leaving the accident site (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do5981, Dec. 9, 2005; 2006Do3059, Jul. 13, 2006, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: according to the evidence duly adopted by the defendant, that the defendant concealed the damaged vehicle that was in the atmosphere of the signal due to the negligence of violating the duty to stop driving the damaged vehicle, thereby damaging the damaged vehicle to the extent of 330,00 won, and that the victim 2,300 won was injured by the victim 2,00 won in need of medical treatment; the defendant did not get off the damaged vehicle and only caused the victim to suffer injuries on behalf of the victim 2,000 won in the case where only the passenger of the damaged vehicle would get off the vehicle without getting out of the damaged vehicle, and that the passenger was punished by the victim 1,000 in the case of the accident and the victim did not take appropriate relief measures, and that the defendant did not comply with the provision of the Road Traffic Act, even if the victim did not know the victim's identity before driving the vehicle at the scene of the accident, and that the defendant could not have been found to have been able to prevent the victim from taking such measures.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (a

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. Thus, in this case where a fine of five million won has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not legitimate

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

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Park Il-hwan et al.

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Min Il-young