Whether a crime of non-compliance with reporting under Article 50 (2) of the Road Traffic Act is separately established where a crime of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established (negative)

The purpose of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is to punish a person who commits a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act by means of transportation of a vehicle, etc. as provided in Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act in cases where the driver of the vehicle concerned runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, and the crime of non-report under Article 50 (2) of the Road Traffic Act shall not be included in the above escape and

Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. and Article 50 of the Road Traffic Act

Daegu High Court Decision 76No1262 decided Feb. 3, 1977 (Counterclaim) (Seoul High Court Decision 77No336 decided Feb. 3, 1977 (Dong) (Seoul High Court Decision 79No94 decided Feb. 3, 197)

Defendant 1 and one other

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for five years and by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

The number of days under detention prior to the rendering of a judgment shall be 60 days each included in the above sentence.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

피고인 2는 (차량번호 생략)호 로얄엑스큐 승용차의 운전업무에 종사하는 자, 피고인 1은 상업에 종사하는 자인 바,

1. Defendant 2:

Around 20:00 on March 24, 198, Defendant 1 was carrying the said car at a speed of about 80 kilometers from the moving side of Gyeonggi-gun to the Si/Eup/Myeon, and the movement of the same Gun led to the front side of the Si Gun to the Si Gun, Gun, where the movement of the same Gun was in front of the Si Gun, where the width was narrow, and it was difficult at night at the time. In such a case, the person engaged in the driving of motor vehicles was in charge of driving motor vehicles by failing to perform his duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident, such as safe operation, by taking into account the front side and the left side of the vehicle, and by failing to perform such duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident, it was found that the victim, who was crossing the said road without permission from the left side of the vehicle driving on the left side of the vehicle driving, did not reach the age of 49, and caused the victim's death to the front side of the vehicle, and caused the victim's death to the 10th, 200 on both sides and the back.

2. Defendant 1 in collusion with Defendant 2:

At around 21:20, in order to conceal the above traffic accident from the back of the route near the 103th century, the defendant reported the network outside the vehicle, and the defendant 2 abandoned the victim who was in the back seat of the vehicle and abandoned the body.

The remainder of the facts other than that of the private person in the judgment shall:

1. Each statement consistent with the facts set forth in the judgment of Defendant 2 in this Court and consistent with the facts set forth in the judgment of Defendant 2

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the Defendants prepared by the public prosecutor, which corresponds to this;

1. Statement that corresponds to the statement of Nonindicted 2 prepared by the prosecutor

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5 in preparation of a judicial police assistant, which corresponds to the statement;

1. As to the report of a traffic accident prepared by a judicial police assistant, it may be recognized in full view of the results of the verification corresponding thereto; and

The point of the judgment of the private person,

1. The facts in the judgment can be recognized by the statement that corresponds to the victim non-indicted 3's written autopsy of the victim non-indicted 6's non-indicted 6. Thus, all of the facts in the judgment are proven.

Of the so-called Defendants’ rulings, the point of escape after Defendant 2’s abandonment falls under Articles 5-3(2)1 and 268 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 161(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 161(1) and 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Defendant 2 selected a limited term of punishment for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes among the prescribed penalties. Defendant 2 has a reason to take into account the circumstances, such as: (a) reduced amount of punishment pursuant to Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the same Act; and (b) reduced amount of punishment for Defendant 2 within the scope of each term of punishment; (c) from the date of imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years; and (d) from the date of suspension of sentence for 60 days before the imposition of sentence under Article 57 of the same Act.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 2, the violation of the Road Traffic Act refers to that "Defendant 2 did not report to the nearest police station on the date and place of the accident in this case even if the traffic accident in this case occurred." Thus, the purpose of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is to punish the driver of the vehicle in this case who committed a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to the traffic of a vehicle, a motor device, a electric car or a tram under Article 268 of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, and to punish the driver of the vehicle in this case without taking a measure under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act. Thus, the failure to report under Article 50 (2) of the Road Traffic Act should be included in the above escape and be punished as a crime under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the above violation of the Road Traffic Act is a separate crime, and thus, it should not be judged separately in the order.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee E-defendant (Presiding Judge)