[1] The method of determining whether "the necessity of relief measures" exists in the crime of escape after the injury under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to readily conclude that the victim of a traffic accident was not in need of rescue at the time of the accident solely on the ground that the victim suffered minor injuries, such as saved salt saves requiring two weeks medical treatment, etc., and thus, the crime of escape after the injury is established under Article 5-3

[1] Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 54 (

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2085 Decided May 10, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9672 Decided April 24, 2008

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 2007No1853 Decided January 23, 2008

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below affirmed the first instance judgment that the defendant cannot be punished as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, on the ground that the victims suffered minor injuries due to the accident at the time of the accident, but it is difficult to view that there was a need to receive relief from the defendant, in light of the fact that the victim suffered minor injuries due to the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue, in light of the degree of shock of the defendant vehicle and the damaged vehicle, whether the victims were injured at the time, whether they were lakes and marshes, the situation and timing of the victims

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

The crime of escape after the injury under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established when the driver who committed the crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act by traffic of motor vehicles, etc. departs from the scene of the accident without taking any measure such as aiding the victim, and resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident. Whether there was a need to rescue the victim shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and details of the accident, the age and degree of the victim's injury, and the circumstances after the accident.

However, even according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, it cannot be readily concluded that there was no need for relief at the time of the accident, just because the court below acknowledged the victims did not take measures such as informing the victims of their personal information at the time of the accident, and if the victims were to drive a vehicle without any measures such as informing them of their personal information without any contact with the victim's status without any contact with the victim's personal information, it shall be deemed that the defendant's act constitutes the element of the crime of escape after the death of the victim as seen above.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant cannot be punished as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes because it is not recognized that there was a need for the victim to receive relief at the time of the accident of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the legal principles on the necessity

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)