Whether a driver, etc. who has caused a traffic accident is liable to report under the main sentence of Article 54 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, and whether the same should be interpreted notwithstanding the proviso to the same paragraph (affirmative)

The legislative intent of the obligation to report under the main sentence of Article 54(2) of the Road Traffic Act is to ensure the maintenance and safety of traffic by informing a police officer or police agency of the occurrence of a traffic accident without delay to take appropriate measures such as rescue of victims and recovery of traffic order. In light of the legislative intent of the provision on obligation to report under the Road Traffic Act, the right to refuse to make statements guaranteed under the Constitution, and the principle of equality, the obligation to report drivers, etc. who have caused the traffic accident must be interpreted only when the police officer’s organizational measures are deemed necessary for the relief of victims and the restoration of traffic order in accordance with the scale of the accident or the specific circumstances at the time of the accident. The same holds true in the proviso of Article 54(2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “The same shall not apply to the case where only the vehicle in operation is obviously damaged and necessary for the prevention of danger and smooth communication on the road.”

Articles 11(1) and 12(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 54(2) and 154 subparag. 4 of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Do1013 delivered on June 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 2075) Supreme Court Decision 91Do2027 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong192, 163)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Cheongju District Court Decision 2013No647 decided November 21, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The main sentence of Article 54 (2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver and other crew members of the relevant vehicle shall report without delay to the police officer when the police officer is present at the scene, the place where the accident occurred in the nearest national police station (including district police units, police boxes and branch offices) where the police officer is present at the scene, the number of casualties and the degree of injury, the goods damaged and the degree of damage, the degree of other measures taken, etc., such as the degree of the damage.

The purpose of the duty to report under the Road Traffic Act is to ensure the maintenance and safety of traffic by informing a police officer or police office of the occurrence of a traffic accident without delay to take appropriate measures for the relief of victims and the recovery of traffic order. In light of the legislative intent of the provisions of the duty to report under the Road Traffic Act, the right to refuse to make statements and the principle of equality guaranteed under the Constitution, the duty to report drivers, etc. who have caused the traffic accident shall be interpreted only when it is deemed necessary to take measures by the police officer in excess of the personal measures of the victims in order to rescue the victims and restore the order of traffic (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1013, Jun. 25, 1991, etc.). The same also applies to the case where the proviso of Article 54(2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the same shall not apply to cases where it is evident that only a vehicle in operation has been damaged and it is necessary to ensure the prevention of danger and smooth communication on the road."

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, it is just to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the grounds that there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 54 (2) of the Road Traffic Act or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)