The case holding that it is difficult to view that there was an objective circumstance to recognize that a passenger of a vehicle conflicting with a vehicle driven by the defendant has sustained an injury to the extent that emergency measures need to be taken on the spot due to the accident.

The defendant, who was undergoing the second line of the road, tried to change the vehicle line to the first line. The part after the left side of the driver's vehicle and the second line of the driver's vehicle were contacted by the latter part of the damaged vehicle, causing a minor contact accident of KRW 70,00,00, and the damaged vehicle's driver stated that there was no one who was about three passengers or who was on the part of the driver's vehicle after the accident and until the driver of the injured vehicle prepares a self-driving letter from the police, and that there was no one who was about three passengers or was on the part of the driver's vehicle. While the above passenger was treated in the course of investigation by the police, it is difficult to view that there was an objective circumstance that the above passenger was on the part of the driver's vehicle, and the part and degree of the injury are above one week medical treatment, and the defendant attempted to change the vehicle along with the speed of the damaged vehicle immediately after the accident, and it was difficult to view that the above defendant was on the part of the injured vehicle after stopping and stopping the vehicle after the accident.

Article 5-3 of the Specific Crimes

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court (89 High Court Decision 1305)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the defendant was guilty of the defendant, although he did not immediately stop due to the situation at the time of the occurrence of the accident in this case, and that he could not immediately stop or set up a motor vehicle on the side, he could not move back to the direction of 200 meters, and he did not have an intention to flee, the court below found the defendant guilty. Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or escape affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and even if it is not for domestic affairs, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized that the defendant had escaped as it did not take relief and assistance to the victim and applied Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Crimes Act") to the above, and applied Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

However, in Article 5-3 (1) of the above Aggravated Punishment Act, the phrase "if a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures as stipulated in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding a victim, etc." refers to the case where a driver stops and leaves the site without taking necessary measures, such as aiding a injured person, even though the victim was aware that he was injured due to an accident, and neglecting it without taking necessary measures, such as aiding the injured person. Examining the evidence cited by the judgment of the court below, no evidence can be found to prove that the defendant left the site without recognizing that the injured person was injured.

In other words, the defendant had a conflict between the victim of this case and the victim of this case while changing the vehicle at the same time and at the place of this case, but the collision was not a separate accident since it was a minor contact accident, and it was not immediately stopped and did not deal with the accident, but the defendant changed the vehicle line to the side of the road to stop on the road while proceeding in the future. According to the records of this case, the collision occurred after the defendant's driving vehicle's left side and the front part of the above taxi's right side and the front part of the above taxi's contact with the defendant's order to stop the accident, and it was hard to view that the defendant did not have any error in the law of the court below since the victim's 6th day of this case's accident and the victim's 70,000 won merely (the actual damage amount except for the public road) after the victim's 6th day of this case's accident and the victim's 2nd day of this accident's driver's second day of this case's accident.

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the defendant's non-indicted 1 driver's (vehicle number omitted) operation of non-indicted 3 on October 15, 1989 and the defendant's non-indicted 1 driver's business operation (vehicle number omitted) operation of the above non-indicted 1 driver's vehicle without an agreement about 50 kilometers in time with the 6th line located in Samsung-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. According to the provisions of this case's law, the defendant tried to change the 1st line to the 2nd line to prevent the defendant from driving the above taxi prior to the arrival of the above 19th line. Thus, the defendant's non-indicted 1 driver's vehicle's accident without an agreement about the 1st line and the 2nd line from the 1st line to the 1st line to the 1st line to the 2nd line to the above 1st line to the defendant's order to change the direction of the 1st line to the 2nd line to the above facts charged.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)