[1] The meaning of "domination" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act

[2] 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 can be punished for a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

[3] The case holding that it is difficult to deem that the driver of the accident was in need of taking measures such as aiding the victim since the degree of injury of the victim was insignificant

[1] "When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she was aware of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident and causing un

[2] The provisions of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes, in light of the legislative purport and protected legal interest that the act was enacted to protect public interests such as traffic safety by taking account of a strong ethical criticism potential and to protect the personal legal interests of the victims of traffic accidents, and to protect the victim's life and body safety by taking into account the situation where the traffic accident is not established in a sound and reasonable traffic order corresponding to the symptoms of a motor vehicle and a traffic accident, where it is not recognized that there was a need to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as the actual relief of the victims of the accident, even if the driver of the accident left the scene prior to performing his/her duty provided for in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victims of the accident, shall not be punished as a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

[3] The case holding that it is difficult to view that the driver of the accident caused the accident to take measures, such as actually aiding the victim, in case where the driver of the accident took part in the accident scene without taking any particular measures, and left the accident site to request another person to handle the accident even though the driver reported that the victim is taking charge of the accident after paying the traffic accident, but the victim only suffered the injury of the acute climatic stypitis which requires two-day medical treatment

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Do1831 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1636), Supreme Court Decision 94Do2204 delivered on October 21, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3162), Supreme Court Decision 96Do252 delivered on April 9, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1481), Supreme Court Decision 96Do1415 delivered on August 20, 196 (Gong196Ha, 2924), Supreme Court Decision 97Do2475 delivered on November 28, 199 (Gong198, 201) (Gong1998), Supreme Court Decision 200Do3299 delivered on December 29, 205 (Gong2094, 2008Sang, 205Do32089 delivered on December 28, 2019)

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 2001No388 delivered on May 9, 2001

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

1. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in full view of the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the defendant's escape from the accident site without taking any measures despite the defendant's failure to rescue the victim due to the traffic accident in this case. Thus, the court below judged that it was justifiable for the court of first instance to find the defendant guilty of violating Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the defendant, and dismissed

Article 5-3(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 Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim of a traffic accident,” such as aiding a victim of an accident, the term “when the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” refers to a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident by leaving the accident site prior to performing his/her duty under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim despite the awareness of the fact that the victim was killed or injured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2563, Jan. 5, 200); provided that Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that the driver of an accident who caused the accident is unable to take measures such as aiding the victim of a serious ethical criticism, protecting the victim’s life and body.

However, according to the evidence of the first instance court as cited by the court below, the defendant left the accident site to request another person to handle an accident while leaving a vehicle that he driven on the road after having paid a traffic accident as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance and stopping the vehicle on the road and leaving the vehicle in which the victim gets off from the accident site without any particular measures. However, the injury suffered by the victim of the accident is due to the degree that the above accident was widely known, and the above accident was caused by the interview of X-ray at the hospital on the next day, and there was no error in the result of the interview of X-ray at the hospital on the next day and the fact that the victim was diagnosed as acute satis in need of two weeks of medical treatment based on clinical presumption. Thus, it is difficult to view that it was necessary to take measures such as the victim's injury and the situation after the accident, etc. in light of the situation and circumstances after the accident, it is not possible to punish the defendant as a violation of Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc.

Nevertheless, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant of violation of Article 5-3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of Article 5-3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s ground of appeal

2. As to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving)

While the Defendant filed an appeal on this part, the Defendant did not submit any grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Dok-in Vehicle) shall be reversed in an unlawful manner. Since the remaining part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is in a commercial concurrent relationship or in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act

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 Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)