In a case where Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established, whether the crime of failure to report under Article 45 (2) of the Road Traffic Act is established separately.

The purpose of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not to establish a separate crime by absorbing the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is not reported under Article 45 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, in a case where the driver of the vehicle concerned who commits the crime under Article 265 of the Criminal Act, such as aiding the victim, etc. by traffic of the vehicle under Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act, and

Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc., and Article 45 of the Road Traffic Act

A

Daegu District Court of First Instance (78 High Court Decision 119 delivered on July 1, 200)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

One hundred fifteen days from the number of detention days before the judgment of the court below is rendered shall be included in the above sentence: Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be postponed for four years from the date when

The gist of the appeal by the defendant's defense counsel is that the judgment of the court below affected the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and that the determination of the punishment is unreasonable. Thus, considering the evidence duly examined by the court below in light of the records, it is sufficient to recognize the facts of the defendant at the time of original adjudication by comparing the evidence duly examined by the court below, and there is no other evidence to see that the fact-finding by the court below

However, the purpose of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is to punish ex officio when the driver of the vehicle in question, who committed a crime under Article 268 of the Road Traffic Act due to the transportation of a motor vehicle, motor device, electric car, or track, does not take measures under Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim. Thus, the failure to report under Article 45 (2) of the Road Traffic Act shall be included in the above escape, and it is reasonable to be punished as a crime under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Thus, the judgment of the court below should be punished as concurrent crimes because the defendant did not report it when he escaped as a driver of the vehicle in question, and it affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles of the above Article, etc. and thus, the reversal shall not be exempted.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following judgment is rendered again after pleading.

The evidence relationship between the facts of the crime acknowledged by a member and the facts of the crime is the same as that of the court below except for the facts of the crime that "it is not reported without delay to the police officer of the nearby police station, even if it causes the above traffic accident at the above time and place."

Article 5-3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act provides that the defendant escaped without taking relief measures even though he/she causes death to a person, and Articles 75 (1) 1 and 38 of the Road Traffic Act provide that a person without a license shall be punished by imprisonment for a fixed term of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, a prescribed term of imprisonment for a violation of Article 75 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act, a prescribed term of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and a prescribed term of imprisonment for a violation of Article 75 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act is deemed to be concurrent crimes under Article 37 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act. Thus, if the defendant is an initial juvenile, and the reason for this case is significantly competition with the victim's fault after the accident, and if the defendant reported his/her accident to the police and his/her bereaved family members, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment for 315 months.

Of the facts charged, it is reasonable to view that the prosecutor's failure to report the contents of the instant traffic accident to the nearest police station in the location of the instant accident is the only imprisonment with prison labor in the first instance trial court (Article 77 of the Road Traffic Act is only a fine not exceeding 100,000 won or a penal detention), and the indictment was instituted as one of the comprehensive crimes under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, in light of the contents of the indictment, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the prosecutor was not guilty in

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

Judges Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice) Kim Tae-tae Kim Young-young