[1] In a case where it is not deemed necessary to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim by an accident driver, whether it may be punished for a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that the defendant had the criminal intent of escape on the grounds that the victim of 14 years of age was not able to find any particular credit other than that of her ties and her ties with her friendship after the accident, and that it was difficult to view that there was a number of witnesses to escape

[1] Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2001 decided Jun. 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1893) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6903 decided Apr. 25, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1385)

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 2004No2823 Decided February 2, 2005

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts as a whole: the victim was shocked immediately after the traffic accident of this case to the ground and her frighted with the help of her natives; the victim went to a hospital after the traffic accident; the victim was her life in the age of 14; the victim was her life in the age of 14 at the time of the accident, and the victim was her life in the hospital. The victim was her prone and left kne were febbbs of the left knee, and the victim was her free kbse and kbse were her free from the hospital. The victim was her febsebse and kbse in both sides and kbse in the school to board the vehicle; the victim was 2 to 3 meters away from the school site to leave the school site, and the defendant was found guilty of the victim's intention to leave the school site without any rescue and verification of the traffic accident of this case.

2. However, we cannot accept the fact-finding and determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "when a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under the provisions of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding a victim, etc." refers to a case where the driver of an accident has deserted the accident site prior to performing his duty under the provisions of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim despite his awareness of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, and brings about a situation in which it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident. However, even if he left the accident site prior to performing his duty under the provisions of Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as aiding the victim, he cannot be punished for a violation of the provisions of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the driver of the accident and providing relief to the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do28, Jun. 28, 2002).

Even based on the facts acknowledged by the court below, the victim got shocked to the ground immediately after the traffic accident of this case and worked on the road with the help of her natives. However, after the accident, the defendant was able to go to a hospital over several times after the accident, but the victim refused to pay her fine, while leaving a driving school vehicle with her natives.

However, in light of the fact that at the time, the court below recognized the fact that the victim sustained knee, knee, etc., and stated that the victim was aware that knee, knee, etc., due to the relationship between knee and knee, knee, and that the victim was aware that knee was born only when knee was put in the house, it is difficult to view that the defendant was aware that knee had a credit to the victim as above at the scene of the accident.

However, in light of the circumstances of the accident of this case where the victim was found to have been born at the time when the victim 14 years old her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her with her her her her her her her her her her her her...

Nevertheless, the court below judged that there was a criminal intent to escape from the defendant for the above reasons, and there was an error of misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the ground of appeal assigning

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)