[1] The purpose of Article 50 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act and the degree of measures to be taken by the accident driver

[2] The case holding that even if the damaged vehicle suffered only a minor physical damage and the wave did not scattered on the road due to a traffic accident, if it runs away without taking necessary measures such as immediately stopping, it shall not be deemed that the damaged vehicle took all necessary measures at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident

[1] Article 50 (1) (see current Article 54 (1)) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005) / [2] Article 50 (1) (see current Article 54 (1)) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Do2346 delivered on November 26, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 227) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4452 delivered on October 22, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2926)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 2005No1233 Decided August 19, 2005

The part of the judgment of the court below that violated the Road Traffic Act due to the failure to take measures after the destruction shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of Gwangju

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: (a) on April 27, 2005, the Defendant driven the freight truck from 80Da3976 on April 27, 2005, and moved back from the hold to the front side of the Southern Elementary School located in the territorial sea at the time of Bagpopoon; (b) the victim Nonindicted Party, who was the victim’s (vehicle number omitted) driver’s (vehicle number omitted) driver’s seat in the Damast Dam Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Rond Do to the front part of the said freight, and did not take measures at the time of the occurrence of a traffic accident.

In regard to this, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle caused by the instant traffic accident is limited to the degree of flaging a little flag, and the repair cost is a total of 425,000 won, and there was no flag dust from the damaged vehicle, that is, the damaged vehicle can only be recognized by the vehicle of each defendant, and that there was no data to find that the damaged vehicle caused the traffic danger and obstacle due to the instant traffic accident, and that there was no data to find that there was a need to take measures to prevent and remove the traffic danger and obstacle at the time of leaving the scene of the accident, and to ensure smooth traffic.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

The purpose of Article 50(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005 and enforced from June 1, 2006; hereinafter “Act”) is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on roads and ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic. In this case, necessary measures to be taken by a driver shall be appropriately taken according to the situation at the scene of the accident, such as the contents of the accident, the degree and degree of damage, etc., and the degree of measures to be taken to the extent normally required in light of our sound form (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do2346, Nov. 26, 1993, etc.).

According to the records, the defendant, at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, runs beyond a virtual median line while driving the above cargo at a time and place going beyond a virtual median line, conflict with the damaged vehicle in the opposite direction. At the time, two women other than the driver was on board and the defendant was aware of this fact. The defendant escaped without stopping immediately after the accident. The defendant sent radio contact with the police and attempted to arrest the defendant by 5 km or defendant. The accident points are where the drinking house is concentrated around the window of the horse at the time of the accident, and the vehicle flow was not big at the time of the accident. Accordingly, if the facts are found, the defendant escaped without taking necessary measures such as immediately stopping under Article 50(1) of the Act, and even if the victim, etc. escaped, the victim, etc. caused a new traffic accident or a new obstacle to the road traffic accident, the defendant did not suffer any damage to the above 10-day vehicle due to a minor traffic accident.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Articles 106 and 50(1) of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that it is difficult to view that the defendant's failure to take measures to ensure smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles at the time of leaving the scene of the accident because the above traffic accident is merely a very minor contact accident, and thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant was guilty of the above charged facts. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part of the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the non-measures after destruction is reversed, and that part of 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 Justices.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)