[1] In a case where it is not acknowledged that a driver of an accident needs to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as providing actual relief to a victim, whether it may be punished for a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to deem that the accident driver was in need of taking measures such as aiding the victim in light of the victim’s degree of damage, the circumstances after the accident, etc.

[1] The phrase "when a driver of an accident 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," means a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be determined because he deserts the accident site prior to performing the duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim despite the awareness of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident. However, the provisions of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act are not established in a sound and reasonable traffic order corresponding to the shock of a motor vehicle and a traffic accident, in light of the reality that the driver who caused the traffic accident fails to take measures such as aiding the victim who was killed, taking into account a strong ethical criticism possibility, protecting the public interest of traffic safety by aggravated punishment, and protecting personal interests of the victim's life and body, such as safety at the scene of the accident, the details and degree of the accident, the degree of the accident victim's injury and the accident's age, etc.

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to deem that the accident driver was in need of taking measures, such as aiding the victim in light of the victim’s degree of damage, the circumstances after the accident, etc.

[1] [2] Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act, Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2763 Delivered on January 11, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 504) and Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2869 Delivered on January 11, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 504), Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2001 Delivered on June 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1893), Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3272 Delivered on September 24, 2002 (Gong202Ha, 2637), Supreme Court Decision 202Do4292 Delivered on October 222, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2637)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2001No3383 Delivered on November 20, 2002

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 50(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under the provisions of Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim of a traffic accident, etc.” refers to cases where the driver of an accident runs away from the accident site prior to performing his/her duty under the provisions of Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim despite his/her awareness of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, resulting in an unaccomparability of identity of the person who caused the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2563, Jan. 5, 200).” Article 5-3(1) provides that “Where a driver of an accident caused by his/her negligence fails to take measures such as aiding the victim of the accident, such as aiding the victim of the accident, he/she shall be subject to aggravated punishment, taking into account that there is no need to protect the public interest of traffic and personal interests of the victim of an accident, such as the victim’s life and body.

According to the records, the defendant's vehicle sees that the victim, who was overly shocked on the left side by his own car, left the scene of the accident by getting off by getting off the front door of the above car and putting him fine, and then driving the above car without any particular measure, but the victim was provided medical treatment to the hospital after five days of the accident. The victim was issued only after X-ray-ray without any special external treatment, as there is no special external treatment, and the victim did not receive medical treatment after he was taken. In light of the degree of damage caused by the victim and other circumstances of the accident of this case as shown in the records, etc., it is difficult to view that there was a need to take measures such as the defendant actually providing relief to the victim, etc. in the accident of this case, since he left the accident site as above, he cannot be punished for violation of Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient and inappropriate, it is just in the conclusion that the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime and thus, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

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

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)