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

[2] Whether the crime of violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act are intentional crimes (affirmative)

[3] Purport of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the degree of measures to be taken by an accident driver

[4] The case holding that the driver of an accident vehicle and the same passenger, when the driver of the vehicle and the driver of the same passenger are in a stop for signalling and driving along the vehicle from the balc pedal, are not likely to escape without taking necessary measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, in case where the driver of the vehicle and the driver of the same passenger are able to understand that the victim did so, and that the victim's bodily injury and the damage of the damaged vehicle can not be easily known on the external side

[5] Whether a suspended sentence may be imposed on a defendant who denies criminal facts (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" means 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 although he/she knew that the victim was killed or injured, and brings about a situation that cannot be confirmed as the

[2] A crime of violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established when a person is aware of the fact leading to death and injury, and a crime under Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, which is established when a person subject to such act violates Article 50 (1) of the same Act, also constitutes an intentional crime that requires recognition of the fact that a person is killed or injured or damaged or that a person is destroyed or damaged due to traffic of a vehicle and other crew members, such as a crime of violation of Article

[3] The purpose of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on roads to ensure safe and smooth traffic, not to recover physical damage to victims. In this case, measures to be taken by drivers on the road shall be appropriately taken according to the situation of the accident scene, such as the contents of the accident and the degree and degree of damage, and the degree of measures to be taken by drivers on the road refers to measures to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form.

[4] The case holding that the driver of an accident vehicle and the passenger of the same passenger are not able to understand that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and the passenger of the same passenger are able to easily see the victim's accident and the damaged vehicle's injury and the damaged vehicle's damage cannot be deemed to have escaped without taking necessary measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, in the event that the vehicle stops for the signal signal while driving slowly far away from the bracal pedal, and the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and the driver of the same passenger are shocked insignificantly.

[5] The suspension of sentence may not be granted since a crime is committed in a case where the circumstances before the sentence is suspended under Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act refer to that in which the person concerned has committed a serious disturbance in depth, and in a case where denying the crime, the suspension of sentence may not be deemed to have been committed.

[1] Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes / [2] Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 50 (1) and 106 of the Road Traffic Act / [3] Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act / [4] Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 5-3 (1)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do3437 delivered on June 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2066), 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 97Do2475 delivered on November 28, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 201), Supreme Court Decision 97Do3079 delivered on March 27, 198 (Gong1998Sang, 195) 94Do19399 delivered on September 13, 1995 (Gong1994, 195)

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 98No3662 delivered on June 30, 1999

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

On February 11, 1998, the Defendant driven the above vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 0.10% around 23:00, while driving the vehicle at a speed of 0.10% from that of the Yandong-dong in Daegu-gu to that of the middle-dong-dong, the Defendant did not secure safety distance with the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the three weeks. At the same time, the Defendant did not immediately stop the back part of the above fr in front.

2. Summary of the reasoning of the judgment below

In full view of the various evidences adopted by the first instance court, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment (the first instance court convicted the Defendant of the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Road Traffic Act on Drinking Driving) and found the entire charges of this case on the ground that the Defendant’s act in this case constitutes “the time when a traffic accident occurs” under Article 5-3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and “the time when a traffic accident occurs” under Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, and “the time when a traffic accident occurs” under Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Defendant did not ask the victim whether the above accident occurred, and did not cause contact with the victim or personal information of the Defendant, etc., nor did the victim know about his personal information, etc., nor did he wish to compensate for damages.

3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

(1) Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Crimes"), such as aiding the victim, where the driver runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc., although the victim was aware of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, it refers to a situation where the accident site cannot be confirmed as the victim of the accident because the driver escaped from the accident site before performing the duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do3437, Jun. 11, 1993; 94Do1850, Sept. 13, 1994).

In addition, the crime provided for in Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, which is established when violating Article 50 (1) of the same Act, is also an intentional crime that requires the subject of the act to recognize the fact that the driver is killed or injured or damaged by the traffic of the vehicle and the other crew members of the vehicle, as in the case of the crime of violating the Special Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do253, Jun. 14, 191; 93Do49, May 11, 1993). The purpose of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and remove traffic risks and obstacles and ensure safe and smooth traffic, not to recover physical damage of the victim. In this case, the measures to be taken at the site of the driver should be appropriately taken according to the situation at the scene of the accident, such as the content of the accident, the attitude and degree of damage, etc., and the degree of such measures shall be taken to the extent normally required in light of sound style (see, 196Do4, 19639, Mar. 196, 196.

(2) However, according to the records, the Defendant stops for the left-hand signal at the point of the instant accident when the victim was on board the top of a string of the workplace, and the victim was on the top of the accident. In light of the fact that the victim was on the top of the accident, the Defendant did not know of the fact that the victim was on the top of the vehicle, and that the victim was on the top of the accident, and that the victim was on the top of the accident, and that the victim was on the top of the accident, who was on the top of the accident, did not know of the fact that the victim was on the top of the accident, and that the victim was on the top of the accident, and that the victim was on the top of the accident, who was on the top of the accident, did not know of the fact that the victim was on the top of the vehicle, and that the victim was on the top of the accident, and that the victim was on the front of the accident, and thus, the Defendant did not see the part of the vehicle that was on the top of the accident.

(3) In full view of all such circumstances, the victim at the time of the accident in this case cannot be deemed to have suffered an injury that could easily be seen on the road due to the accident in this case, and furthermore, it seems that the victim did not know about the damage of the damaged vehicle, and further measures were taken to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic hazards and obstacles. Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have escaped without taking necessary measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim, even though recognizing the above injury or damage at the time of the accident in this case.

Nevertheless, the court below's finding that all the facts charged of this case are proven as above is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act and Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, and it is clear that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit (In addition, the court below rejected the prosecutor's appeal, reversed the judgment of the first instance which rendered a judgment of partial innocence, and suspended a sentence for 8 months in consideration of the fact that the defendant was a initial offender and agreed to be guilty, and suspended a sentence for 19 (1) of the Criminal Act, but the court below determined that the sentence was just for 10 months in consideration of the fact that the defendant was sentenced to a new punishment and agreed to be guilty, but it means that the whole situation of the crime was remarkably divided in depth of the crime, and thus, if the defendant denies the criminal facts in this case, it cannot be said that the court below suspended the sentence.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)