(a) Relationship between the crime of occupational injury or death under Article 268 of the Criminal Act and the violation of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

B. The case holding that in the reasoning of the judgment, there is an error of law that acquitted one of the crimes, considering one crime as one crime and two crimes in the text of the judgment are committed.

A. In a case where a driver runs away without taking relief measures after shocking a person, it is only applicable to Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and it cannot be deemed that the crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act is constituted, and both crimes are absorption.

B. In the reasoning of the judgment, the crime of injury by occupational negligence under Article 268 of the Criminal Act is incorporated into the crime of violation of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the judgment of not guilty of the electronic crime is deemed to be a separate crime, and the judgment of not guilty of the electronic crime is a separate crime.

Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. and Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court (74Gohap139)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

One hundred days out of the detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 5-2(2) of the Criminal Act provides that when the driver who committed the crime pursuant to Article 268 of the Criminal Act runs away without taking measures such as relief, etc., the act of escape should be punished, and thus, it should not be absorption and punished. However, the court below recognizes the absorption relation, recognize only the defendant as violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and declares the injury by occupational negligence, which is a violation of the law.

However, in the case where the driver of the vehicle who committed the crime as provided in Article 268 of the Road Traffic Act does not take measures as provided in Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding the victim, and runs away without taking measures as provided in Article 45 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, it cannot be viewed that the crime as provided in Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the crime of bodily injury by occupational negligence) is authorized separately from this case. Thus, the court below is just in holding that the relationship between the above two crimes is in a so-called absorption relationship with the party members, and it is not in a substantive competition relationship. However, the court below's decision that "in particular, it is not guilty of the injury by occupational negligence among the facts charged in this case" in the decision of the court below is a crime, and it can be deemed that the above two crimes are committed with the same illegality as the two crimes.

The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is an error in the application of the law in this regard, and therefore, the appeal is justified. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the trial court is the same as that of the statement of the judgment of the court below, thereby citing it.

On the other hand, Article 75 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 38 and Article 55 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes apply to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 5-3 and Article 5 of the same Act, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and Article 35 and Article 42 of the Criminal Act, since the defendant has a criminal record of being sentenced to a repeated crime, he is subject to each repeated crime under Article 35 and Article 42 of the Criminal Act, since the above two crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the above crimes are concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) 2, Article 50 and Article 42 of the same Act, within the scope of the aggravated term of punishment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 57 of the Criminal Act applies to the sentence of imprisonment for 10 days prior to the sentence of imprisonment.

The summary of the facts charged as to the injury by occupational negligence among the facts charged in this case is that the relation under Article 5-3 and Article 5-1-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the same as the part corresponding to the facts charged in the timely statement of the judgment below admitted by a party member, is interpreted as not constituting the crime of bodily injury by occupational negligence, since the former is absorbed into the latter, and the latter does not constitute the crime of bodily injury by occupational negligence, as stated in the judgment of the grounds for appeal. Thus, the part of the facts charged in this case is the case where the defendant is not the crime of occupational negligence. However, as long as the defendant is found guilty of the violation of the Act

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-woo (Presiding Judge)