2017 Highly 889 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury)

Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Measures Not to be Taken after Accidents)

A

Kim Young-ju (prosecution, public trial), Kim Jung-Jon (public trial)

Law Firm B

Attorney C, D

November 23, 2017

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person engaging in driving of E-si.

On March 29, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car at around 10:30, and proceeded along the three-lanes of the 2744 and the 3-lane of each salary basin in south-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. The Defendant driven the above car at around 10:30 and proceeded along the three-lanes of each salary, tunnel, shooting distance, from the breadth of each salary basin.

In such cases, a driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents, such as taking a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle into account the front, rear, left, and well, accurately operating the brake and steering gear, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected to do so and led the victim F (the age of 38) who was driving prior to the same room due to the negligence of neglecting it to see the back part of the G G G G G G L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L).).).).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness L;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Each police statement made to the F, H and J;

1. Statement in the occurrence of a traffic accident by the F, H and J;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. The driver's license and the driver's license and license holder's license and license holder's license;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Each Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 14356, Dec. 2, 2016); Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act; selection of each fine

2. Competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act [Punishments imposed on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Non-accidented Measures) against the victim F with the largest penalty]

3. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the Defendant and defense counsel's argument

1. Summary of the defendant's defense counsel's assertion

The fact that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case") and the fact that the damaged vehicle was damaged due to the accident of this case, but the defendant did not leave the site, and immediately after the accident, the Bosch Rexroth and the police called out and arranged the site, the defendant took all necessary measures required by the Road Traffic Act.

2. Determination

(a) Relevant legal principles;

The purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles that may occur on roads to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, not to recover victims’ damage. In such cases, measures to be taken by drivers shall be appropriately taken according to specific circumstances, such as the content of accidents and the degree of damage, etc., and the degree of such measures shall be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do787, May 14, 2009). Determination should be based on a comprehensive consideration of (i) the degree of damage caused by a traffic accident; (ii) the degree and degree of damage caused by a traffic accident; (iii) the occurrence of an accident on roads; (iv) the occurrence of an accident at a time and place during which the accident occurred frequently; (iii) whether the victimized vehicle was on board a vehicle; and (vi) whether the accident’s escape and the victim or witness; and (v) whether there was any other danger and injury to traffic.

B. Determination

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly selected and investigated by the court of this case, namely, ① the victim F's vehicle in the accident of this case was destroyed to the extent of scrapping, and the victim J vehicle was separated from the front driver (No. 6 and 8) and ② the witness L appears to have been in the road to be a considerable amount of fugitives on the road when L was called to the scene (L was called to the scene). The witness testified that "at the scene of the accident, at the scene of the accident, three lanes out of about 20 minutes of the four-lanes road were closed and arranged the scene"; ③ the defendant stopped immediately after the accident, but the vehicle stopped at the scene after the accident, and the degree of destruction of the vehicle was removed from the vehicle, ④ the on-site training site and the witness on the road was called to the scene and the defendant did not have any special reason to view that it was difficult for the defendant to take necessary measures to remove the danger and injury of the vehicle due to the accident.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law: Fines of not less than 50,000 won but not more than 1.5 million won;

2. Determination of sentence: Fine of two million won; and

While the Defendant was aware of the occurrence of a traffic accident by his negligence, the Defendant did not make all efforts to prevent traffic hazards. Considering the Defendant’s occupation as a taxi engineer, the possibility of criticism against the Defendant is very high.

However, the accident of this case takes into account favorable sentencing factors, such as the fact that there was a significant result compared to the degree of defendant's negligence, the fact that the defendant subscribed to the mutual aid insurance, and that there was no record of punishment.

In addition, the punishment was determined by comprehensively taking into account various factors of sentencing, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of each of the crimes in this case, circumstances after the crime was committed, jury's sentencing opinion, etc.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

On March 29, 2017, the Defendant: (a) caused a traffic accident under the same circumstances as the above criminal facts; (b) and (c) committed an injury to the victim F, such as salt, tensions, etc. in the chills requiring approximately two weeks of medical treatment; (d) even though the victim H suffered from an injury to the victim J, such as salt, tensions, and tensions that require approximately two weeks of medical treatment; and (e) even though the victim J, the Defendant did not take necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victims.

2. Determination

1) The facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial must be proven by the prosecutor, and the judge should be found guilty with evidence having probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be determined.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5701 Decided November 1, 2002, etc.)

2) According to the records, the Defendant, after the instant accident occurred, has stopped without putting about 3 minutes off without getting off or getting off, was on board again on board the instant vehicle without checking only the situation of the collision part of the Defendant’s vehicle. In this process, the Defendant returned to the damaged vehicle and changed the accident site. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not move to the damaged vehicle, but stopped the vehicle at the entrance of the building by moving to the building on the opposite side with the damaged vehicle, and the Defendant was found to have suspended the afforestation of the black box. According to the above recognized facts, it is true that the Defendant failed to take all relief measures against the victims and attempted to escape from the site.

3) However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record, even if comprehensive evidence submitted by the prosecutor was presented by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to deem that the defendant had an intention to flee or left the scene to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) "Abstinence" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means a situation in which it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident as a person who left the accident site before performing the duty provided for in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, even though the driver of the accident knew that he/she was killed or injured (Supreme Court Decision 2004Do250 Decided March 12, 2004). Meanwhile, the above victim relief measures are not necessarily necessary for the driver of the accident himself/herself, and even if another person takes relief measures in advance through a person under his/her control or prior to leaving the site (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5981 Decided December 9, 2005).

② The building at the EBS head office where the Defendant moved the vehicle was immediately adjacent to the place where the primary collision occurred between the Defendant’s vehicle and the victim F vehicle, and the place where the damaged vehicle was located far away from the place where the accident occurred, depending on the location where the damaged vehicle stopped.

(3) The location where the defendant loaded a vehicle was not the inner or underground parking lot of the building, but the entrance of the building that could easily be discovered in the vicinity of the building, and no other circumstance exists to deem that the defendant attempted to conceal the vehicle.

④ The Defendant alleged that a police officer, who moved a vehicle to a building and was on training at the scene, was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, and that the police officer was subject to an investigation by moving the vehicle to the Suwon Police Station under the direction of the police officer.

In light of the fact that the Defendant had operated approximately 5 km from 11:30 to 11:40, the above distance is similar to the distance from the site of the instant accident to the Suwon Police Station (No. 1). Furthermore, the first police protocol of the Defendant’s interrogation of the suspect involved in the instant accident stated that the Defendant arrived at the place of the investigation by the Suwon Police Station at around 12:0 (No. 11). In full view of this, the Defendant appears to have moved to a police station without undergoing an investigation of the circumstances of the accident. It appears that it was difficult for the Defendant to find it difficult for the police station having jurisdiction over the instant accident to know which the victims had been under the investigation of the circumstances. The fact that the Defendant immediately moved to the Suwon Police Station is consistent with the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant had been moved to the Suwon Police Station. It is difficult to view that the Defendant’s intent was insufficient to evaluate the Defendant’s behavior by receiving the police’s instruction from the damaged vehicle.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as the facts charged and the facts charged are found guilty of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident), the judgment of innocence shall not be rendered separately.

jury verdict and sentencing opinion;

1. Results of a verdict of guilt or innocence;

【Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury)】

- Opinions of guilt: Three jurors

- Opinions of innocence: Four jurors (not deemed to have deserted from the scene of an accident, nor to have a criminal escape);

【Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Non-accident)】

- Phy opinions: Seven jurors (many).

2. Sentencing Opinion

5 million won by fine: Three persons;

A fine of 2 million won: One person;

- A fine of 1.5 million won: It is so decided as per Disposition through a participatory trial at the wishes of the defendant for at least three reasons.

presiding judge, judges, vibration

Judges Lee Jae-py

Power of Judge