2015No285 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Evacuation Vehicles), roads

Article 10 (Measures Not Taken after Accidents)

○ ○

Defendant

(Lawsuits) and Kim Jong-gle (Public Trial)

법무법인 ●●● 담당변호사 ▲▲▲

Daegu District Court Decision 2014Kadan655 decided January 6, 2015

December 10, 2015

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts);

The defendant was unaware of the traffic accident, and there was no intention to commit an escape.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of the friendly friendly tank 1000 vehicles.

On March 17, 2014: Around 08:10, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicle, and moved to the right side of the road north of the starting intersection in front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the road. At that time, the Defendant was on the right side of the victim, and thus, the Defendant had a duty of care to safely circumvent

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and caused the victim to shock the front wheel part of the cargo vehicle by the negligence of bypassing the right side of the cargo vehicle as it is, and the bicycle ped the victim's front wheel part of the cargo vehicle, and the bicycle pedle to the right side part of the cargo vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by negligence in the course of performing such duties, sustained injuries on the knee part of the knee part and the knee part of the knee part, and escaped without immediately stopping a bicycle equivalent to KRW 250,000 at the market price and providing relief to the victim.

C. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the above facts charged guilty by taking account of each evidence in its judgment.

C. Judgment of the court below

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to the case where the driver of the accident runs away from the scene before he performs his duty provided in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, although the driver of the accident knew of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, resulting in a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2763, Jan. 11, 2002; 2002Do2001, Jun. 28, 2002, etc.).

2) Determination

According to each evidence of the judgment, the defendant's particular measures against the victim after having paid a traffic accident.

It is recognized that the victim has suffered injuries due to the accident in this case, and that he has submitted a written diagnosis of the knee part of the knee part and the tension under the name of Byungcheon Hospital, which requires a detailed treatment for about three weeks issued by the new Mancheon Hospital.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, the details and contents of the instant accident, and the circumstances after the accident, etc., the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant escaped without fulfilling his/her duty to take relief measures, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. (A) The instant vehicle is a large tank lorri vehicle with the length of 7.47m, the height of 63m, the maximum loading capacity of 7,00km, and the maximum loading capacity of 7,00km. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s vehicle was bypassing, and the victim’s bicycle was trying to go straight along and go straight, and the victim’s bicycle was trying to go straight. The victim did not commit any act, such as passing sound at the time of shock. Due to the characteristics of a large vehicle, the change of the Defendant’s defense can sufficiently be understood.

B) Since the instant case, the Defendant passed through the intersection, which ought to turn 180 degrees at a low speed, and operated the vehicle into a narrow non-concept road. It seems difficult for the Defendant to go ahead of the scene of the accident if he had the intention of escape. In general, the Defendant acted differently from the driving method taken by the drivers of the escape vehicles.

C) In light of the victim’s injury level and degree, the Defendant’s vehicle is affiliated with the Cargo Financial Cooperative, etc., it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant left the scene of the accident with the intention of escape.

Therefore, although the facts charged of this case must be pronounced not guilty because they constitute the absence of proof of crime, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged of this case and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the defendant's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

[Judgment to be used again]

The summary of the facts charged of this case is the same as that of the above Paragraph 2-C, and the facts charged of this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as stated in the above Paragraph 2-C, and thus, it is decided as per Disposition with the decision of not guilty by the latter part of Article 325

Judges Kim Jong-sung

Judges Lee Jae-hoon

Judges Park Jong-young