[1] Purport of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act

[2] In a case where a person was indicted for a crime under Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act but it is not necessary to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the same Act against the driver, etc., whether the person shall be deemed to have been prosecuted for a crime under Article 108 of the same Act and shall be examined and determined (negative)

[1] Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Articles 50 (1), 106, and 108 of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6903 decided Apr. 25, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1385) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2001 decided Jun. 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1893) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Do253 decided Jun. 14, 1991 (Gong191, 1972)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003No11281 Decided October 12, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The purpose of Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on roads to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, not to restore victims' damage. In this case, measures to be taken by drivers should be appropriately taken according to specific circumstances, such as the content of accidents and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures should be taken to the extent that they are ordinarily required in light of sound form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do2001, Jun. 28, 2002; 2002Do6903, Apr. 25, 2003).

In addition, the crime of violation of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which is punished under Article 106 of the same Act, requires awareness of the existence of human thoughts and damage to goods. Since the crime of occupational negligence or gross negligence under Article 268 of the Criminal Act and the crime of crime under Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, which is a criminal of negligence, are completely different from the crime of crime under Article 108 of the same Act, such as protected legal interests, subject, act, etc., if a driver of a vehicle does not take necessary measures such as occupational negligence or gross negligence to injure a person or damage property, and does not take necessary measures such as relief measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the crime of Article 106 of the same Act is established in addition to the crime of occupational negligence, gross negligence, or Article 108 of the same Act, and this shall be deemed as substantive concurrent crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do253, Jun. 14, 191).

In light of the above legal principles and records, in this case where a prosecution was instituted for a violation of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which is punished by Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning, and it is difficult to view that the defendant was in need of taking measures to ensure smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic danger and obstacles at the time of leaving the accident site, and therefore, the defendant cannot be punished as a crime under Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant cannot be punished as a crime under Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, and the measures not deliberated and decided on the crime under Article 108 of the same Act are all justifiable, and there is no error

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

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)