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

[2] In a case where an accident driver sent the victim to a hospital after a traffic accident and notified the victim's family members of his/her personal information, but the driver reported the victim to a police office as an accident driver, whether the accident driver constitutes "domination" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (negative)

[1] "When a driver 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 prior to performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim despite his/her awareness of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, resulting in a situation in which it

[2] If an accident driver transferred the victim to a hospital after a traffic accident and received treatment, and notified his/her family members of the victim's personal information at the hospital, it cannot be deemed that the accident driver escaped from the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim and aiding the victim, and thus, the accident driver failed to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

[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 94Do2204 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1636), Supreme Court Decision 96Do252 delivered on October 21, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3162), Supreme Court Decision 96Do1415 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, 201) and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3294 delivered on December 29, 209, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do32089 delivered on December 29, 2009).

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 2000No2727 delivered on August 23, 2001

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

1. In accordance with the evidence, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case, as it was found in the following facts: (a) on October 2, 2000, the defendant was negligent in occupational negligence in driving the two lanes of the three-lane road in front of the Suwon-dong Suwon-dong in the direction of the industrial road from Asan-si in the direction of the industry while driving the two-lane of the three-lane road in front of the Suan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si and did not accurately operate the steering gear and operation of the steering gear-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si without the victim (77 years old-gu-dong-gu-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-

2. The term "when a driver of an accident runs away without taking such measures as provided by 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 (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Crimes Act") means a case where the driver of an accident leaves the scene of the accident before performing his duty provided by Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he knows that the victim was killed or injured, resulting in a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do1038, May 12, 200).

However, according to the records, the defendant immediately stopped after causing the instant traffic accident, checked the victim's condition, checked 119 to contact the victim at the scene of the accident, carried the victim to the 119 emergency room at the 1,000 emergency hospital at the scene of the accident, leaving the victim to receive emergency treatment with the victim, and there is no big problem that the victim did not intend to do so at the hospital, and transferred the victim to the hospital to the off-the-day emergency department. The defendant later returned the victim's family members at the hospital to use 40,00 won as soon as he did so, and returned the victim's family members to the police station before returning the accident, and sent the victim's name and address to 10,00,000 won to 10,000, and the defendant could not be seen as driving the victim's family members at the 10,000,000 driver of the accident scene before sending the victim to the hospital. After reporting the accident to the 20,000 driver of the accident scene.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles on the escape under Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

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 Cho Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)