(a)In a case where a driver of a vehicle does not take necessary measures such as rescue measures under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act after causing injury to another person by occupational negligence or gross negligence, whether the crime under Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act is established in addition to occupational negligence, gross negligence, or the crime under Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act (affirmative), and the number of such crimes (=actual concurrent crimes)

(b) Whether the crime of Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, which is established by a person who damages another person's property through occupational negligence, has not taken a measure at the time of occurrence of a traffic accident under Article 50 (1) of the same Act, constitutes a crime of non-compliance (negative)

A. A. Since the crime of violation of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which is punished by Article 106 of the same Act, requires awareness of the death or injury of people and the damage of things, among the crimes under Article 268 of the Criminal Act, which are criminals of negligence, the crimes under Article 268 of the same Act, and the crimes under Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, are completely different from all separate crimes such as protected legal interests, subject, act, etc., if the driver of the vehicle concerned does not take necessary measures such as occupational or gross negligence causing the injury of people or destroying property and does not take necessary measures such as relief measures under Article 50 (1) of the same Act, the crimes under Article 106 of the same Act are established in addition to the crimes under Article 108 of the same Act, and such crimes shall be deemed as substantive concurrent crimes.

B. Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that the crime of causing bodily injury by occupational negligence or gross negligence and the crime of causing bodily injury by gross negligence and Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act shall be punished as the crime of causing bodily injury by traffic of vehicles: Provided, That among the crimes of causing bodily injury by occupational negligence and causing gross negligence by gross negligence, where a driver of a vehicle falls under any of subparagraphs 1 through 8 of Article 108 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, he/she intends to exclude it from the crime of causing bodily injury by occupational negligence and causing bodily injury by gross negligence, and even a flight vehicle shall be excluded from the crime of causing bodily injury by gross negligence, it is merely a clear meaning that it is punished under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and since there is no need to regard it as the crime under Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, the crime under Article 106 of the same Act, which is established by a person who causes bodily injury of another person by occupational negligence

(a) Articles 50(1), 106, and 108 of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 37, 268 and 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 90No693 delivered on September 27, 1990

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

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

(1) On January 29, 190, the Defendant, as a driver of the vehicle, driven the above vehicle at around 1:00, while driving on the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle at around 40 kilometers in speed from the front side of the Hongsung-Eup, Hongsung-Eup, the Defendant did not see the front side and the right and the right and the right, and found out the name unbrucing on the bicycle from the right side of the course to the left side of the vehicle and did not take necessary measures to avoid the excessive operation of the vehicle to the left side of the vehicle. Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act was applied to the case where: (a) the Defendant, as a driver of the vehicle, obtained the damaged vehicle to the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle to the extent of KRW 330,00,00 in front of the Defendant’s driving vehicle; and (b) did not immediately stop the damaged vehicle at the right side of the vehicle and did not take necessary measures.

(2) As to this, the lower court stated that Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents cannot be discussed against the victim’s express intention as to the crime of occupational or gross negligence under Article 268 of the Criminal Act and the crime of gross negligence under Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act committed by the driver of a vehicle by traffic of the vehicle. The proviso provides that the same shall not apply in cases where the driver of a vehicle runs away without taking measures under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as the crime of occupational or gross negligence and aiding the victim. This provision provides that all cases including cases where the driver runs away without taking necessary measures under Article 268 of the Criminal Act or gross negligence, and provides that it shall be subject to the crime of occupational or gross negligence, and that this provision does not apply to the case where the driver of a vehicle runs away by gross negligence or by gross negligence under Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, and that the provision of the Road Traffic Act does not apply to the case where the driver does not prosecute the driver of the vehicle by gross negligence or by gross negligence under Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act.

(3) However, Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who does not take measures at the time of occurrence of a traffic accident under the provisions of Article 50 (1) of the same Act shall be punished. Such legal interest is the safety and smooth (see Article 1 of the Road Traffic Act) of the Road Traffic Act, where the driver or crew of a vehicle who causes death or injury to another person or damages goods due to the traffic of the vehicle requires awareness that the traffic accident is not attributable to the driver's intention or negligence, and where there is injury or damage to another person, it is an intentional crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act, which is an offender of negligence, and the crime under Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act is completely separate from the crime under Article 108 of the same Act, such as the principal offender or gross negligence, and the crime under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act does not constitute a crime under Article 10 of the Road Traffic Act where the driver of the vehicle does not take necessary measures such as rescue by occupational negligence or gross negligence, and it does not constitute a crime under Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act.

In addition, if the driver of the vehicle who committed the crime resulting from the occupational injury assumed by the court below is at the scene of the accident and the driver does not take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the crime resulting from the occupational injury and the crime under Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act shall be established (if the victim expresses his intention not to punish him, the crime resulting from the occupational injury shall be dismissed). Therefore, there is no unreasonable reason as pointed out by the court below, and therefore there is no need to regard the crime under Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act as the crime of the

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 3 (2) through Article 106 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act that the defendant did not take measures in the event of traffic accidents under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act even though he damages another person's property through occupational negligence. Thus, the appeal by the prosecutor pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Woo-soo (Presiding Justice)