[1] In a case where it is not deemed necessary to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim by an accident driver, whether it may be punished for a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

[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 and degree of injury, the circumstances after the accident, etc.

[1] Article 5-3 (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 Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim of an accident, etc." refers to a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident because the driver escaped from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim despite the driver's awareness of the fact that the victim was killed or injured. However, Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes does not provide a sound and reasonable traffic order corresponding to the shock of a motor vehicle and a traffic accident. In light of the fact that the driver of an accident escaped without taking measures such as aiding the victim of the accident, taking into account a strong ethical criticism possibility, protecting the public interest of traffic safety by aggravated punishment, protecting personal legal interests of the victim's life and body, such as safety of the victim, the situation and degree of the accident, etc.

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

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2763 Decided January 11, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 504) and Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2869 Decided January 11, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 504), Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2001 Decided June 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 504) (Gong2002Ha, 1893)

Defendant

Defendant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2002No28 delivered on May 31, 2002

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

1. According to the evidence adopted, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime that the defendant, while driving a car at a speed of about 10 km in front of the restaurant, moved the right part of the victim Kim Jong-un's right side part of the victim Kim Jong-un, which was emitted from the restaurant, into the left-hand side part of the driver's vehicle of the defendant's driving, suffered approximately 10 days of medical treatment, but stopped immediately and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim.

2. However, “when a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as aiding the victim under Article 5-3(1) of the Road Traffic Act” refers to a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident because he deserts the scene prior to the performance of the duty under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim despite having been aware of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident. However, the provisions of Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes are not established in a sound and reasonable traffic order corresponding to the shock of a motor vehicle and traffic accident. In light of the fact that the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures such as aiding the victim of the accident, taking account of a strong ethical criticism possibility, protecting the public interest of traffic safety by aggravated punishment, protecting the personal legal interests of the victim, such as life and body, the details and degree of the accident, the driver and the driver’s age of the accident, etc.

However, according to the records, the defendant left the scene of the accident without any measure after the above traffic accident, 'the victim', 'the front of the accident', and 'the victim was driving without viewing the person', and 'the victim was unable to find a special credit for the victim.' The victim is merely in need of observation and stability for about 10 days, and is merely in need of natural therapy without special treatment. In light of the victim's side and degree of injury and other circumstances of the accident in this case as indicated in the records, it is difficult to view that there was a need to take measures such as aiding the victim in this case, and therefore, the defendant cannot be punished for a violation of Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes because the defendant left the scene of the accident without taking such measures.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of violating Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for the above reasons is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on the violation of Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes,

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)