In a case where a public prosecution was instituted only for a crime under Article 5-3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, but it is not recognized that a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act was committed but only for a violation of Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, whether a punishment may be imposed by applying Articles 106 and 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act without

The facts charged that the traffic of a motor vehicle runs away without taking measures pursuant to Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting a victim while committing a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act. In the case where a public prosecution is instituted only for the crimes provided for in Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act is not acknowledged for the crime of Article 268 of the Criminal Act by causing a bodily injury caused by occupational negligence, even if the fact that the traffic accident that causes damage to a motor vehicle does not take necessary measures to be taken pursuant to Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is acknowledged, it shall not be punished by applying

Article 5-3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Articles 106 and 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 254 and 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju High Court Decision 92No715 delivered on February 12, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal No. 2

The court below rejected the evidence that corresponds to the facts charged of this case (in particular, the fact that the defendant injured the victim Kim Jae-soo while driving an automobile) and found the defendant not guilty, and judged that there is no evidence of a crime, and compared the relevant evidence with the record, the judgment of the court below is just, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

This paper ultimately criticizes the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below, and thus cannot be accepted.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 1

The facts charged that the defendant, while committing a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act, failed to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding and abetting the victim while driving a vehicle, is prosecuted only for the crime under Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 268 of the Criminal Act and Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act. In this case, when it is not recognized that the defendant committed a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act because he injured a person due to negligence in the course of his duty, if it is not recognized that the defendant did not take necessary measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act when the traffic accident caused by a vehicle's traffic accident occurred, even if it is recognized that there is no proof of criminal facts and thus, it cannot be punished by applying Articles 106 and 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act without any change in indictment (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1711, May 28, 1991).

3. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)