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

[2] The case holding that where the person causing a traffic accident takes the victim to the hospital and leaves the hospital without notifying the victim or the hospital of any personal information, and the police inquires of the vehicle number of the victim and confirms the identity of the victim and appears at the police box after two hours from the withdrawal of the contact, the case constitutes "a helper under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes"

[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] The case holding that in a case where a person causing a traffic accident takes the victim at the hospital and leaves the hospital without notifying the victim or the hospital of any personal information, and the police inquires of the vehicle number of the victim and confirms the identity of the victim, and appears at the police box after two hours from the withdrawal of contact, the traffic accident falls under "a helper under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes."

[1] Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act / [2] Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Do2475 delivered on November 28, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 201) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Do1850 delivered on September 13, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2701) Supreme Court Decision 95Do1680 delivered on November 24, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 300), Supreme Court Decision 97Do70 delivered on May 7, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1795), Supreme Court Decision 97Do3079 delivered on March 27, 198 (Gong198Sang, 1255), Supreme Court Decision 97Do3999 delivered on April 13, 199 and 97Do19939 delivered on September 13, 195 (Gong1995).

Defendant

Defendant

Incheon District Court Decision 98No2346 delivered on June 16, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides aid to a victim, etc. who runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") refers to a case where the driver of an accident, despite his knowledge of the fact that the victim was injured by an accident, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2475, Nov. 28, 1997; 97Do3079, Mar. 27,

According to the records, the defendant was found to have been present at the police box at the time and at the place of the judgment. The defendant's act did not notify the victim's or the hospital of any personal information but did not leave the hospital and confirmed the identity of the victim and appeared at the police box for 2 hours after confirming the defendant's contact. According to these facts, the defendant cannot be deemed to have properly performed the duty to take relief measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act even though he was moving the victim to the hospital, and it cannot be deemed to have properly performed the duty to take care of the victim or any other person as the victim or any other person can not be confirmed who caused the accident by leaving the hospital without disclosing his identity. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant's act did not constitute an "a victim who has escaped" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and did not constitute an unlawful act in violation of the rules of evidence or in violation of the pertinent legal principles.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)