(a) In case where a person who has caused a traffic accident is liable to report under Article 50 (2) of the Road Traffic Act; and

(b) The case holding that the defendant cannot be deemed to have a duty to report under Article 50 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, who moved the victim to a hospital after causing a traffic accident that causes an injury to a victim who has dried the roadway at night while driving the bus;

A. In light of the legislative purpose of Article 50(2) of the Road Traffic Act and the right to refuse to make statements guaranteed by the Constitution, the duty to report by the person who has caused a traffic accident under the same Article is not always required in all cases which cause a traffic accident, but required only to take organizational measures of a police officer or a police station in order to rescue the victim and recover traffic order according to the size of the accident and specific circumstances at the time.

(b) The case holding that the defendant cannot be deemed to have obligation to report under Article 50 (2) of the Road Traffic Act in light of the situation at the time and the scale of traffic accidents, etc. of the victim, who moved the victim to a hospital after causing a traffic accident that causes an injury to the victim who was a driver of a bus at night while driving the bus;

Article 12(2) of the Constitution, Article 50(2) of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Do978 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 2221) 91Do1013 delivered on June 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 2075) 91Do1153 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2759) 89Hun-Ga118 delivered on August 27, 1990 (Gong11628, 199)

A

Defendant

Attorney B

Busan District Court Decision 91No461 delivered on July 12, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's second ground of appeal is examined.

1. Article 50(2) of the Road Traffic Act, which provides for the obligation to report drivers, etc. who have caused the traffic accident resulting from the death or injury of people or damage to things (the driver and other crew of the vehicle), provides for the duty to report of drivers, etc. who have caused the traffic accident (the driver and other crew of the vehicle), provides for the safe and smooth traffic by promptly notifying police officers or police agencies of the details of the accident without delay and by allowing them to take necessary measures to rescue the injured and prevent the traffic danger and the traffic danger. In light of the purpose of the Road Traffic Act and Article 12(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the duty to report drivers, etc. who have caused the traffic accident is not always required for all cases resulting from the traffic accident, and it shall be interpreted that the duty to report drivers, etc. who have caused the traffic accident is required only when it is deemed necessary to take systematic measures of police officers or police agencies to rescue victims and restore the traffic order (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1013, Jun. 25, 1991).

2. On March 15, 1990, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case that the Defendant did not report the above accident to a police officer or a nearby police station without delay, even though the Defendant caused a traffic accident by negligence that caused the victim who was frighted about two weeks of injury while driving the city bus at around 21:50, while driving the city bus and driving the road in front of the Kimnam-gun Kim-gun Kim-gun, Kim Jong-gun, Kim Jong-gun, and neglecting his duty of safe operation, and caused a traffic accident by negligence. The lower court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on the grounds that the Defendant did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on fact finding in the first instance court, since the occurrence of the instant traffic accident by the bus operated by the Defendant and

3. However, in comparison with relevant evidence, the traffic accident in this case goes against the rear side of the bus in which the victim was driven by the defendant while entering the roadway in order to cross the roadway, and even after the accident occurred (the defendant stated that he was aware of the fact that the traffic accident occurred at that time), the husband of the victim requested the defendant to take measures against the victim by driving the victim on the taxi, and the defendant demanded the victim to move the victim to the hospital, and reported the police office to find the victim by a hospital emergency room, and reported the victim to the police office on March 16, 19. In light of the above situation before and after the traffic accident in this case occurred and the size of the traffic accident in this case recognized by the court below, it is difficult to view that the traffic accident in this case was necessary to take measures for the restoration of order of the victim and traffic or the organization of police officers or police offices due to the traffic accident in this case, regardless of whether the defendant had a duty to report the traffic accident in this case.

Nevertheless, the court below did not review and decide whether the traffic accident in this case resulted in a situation requiring the organized measures of a police officer or a police station for the relief of victims and the restoration of traffic order. Since the defendant knew that he caused the traffic accident in this case, the defendant is obligated to report under Article 50 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, and thus, found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty to report under Article 50 (2) of the Road Traffic Act or failing to properly conduct a deliberation, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, there is a reason to argue that the purport of pointing this out is included.

4. Therefore, without further examining the remainder of the grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)