Article 45 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act at the same time and the number of crimes

If the driver of a vehicle does not perform all the relief obligations provided by Article 45 (1) and the reporting obligations provided by Article 45 (2) of the Road Traffic Act that arise from one traffic accident, and deserts from the site of accident, the omission of each of the above violations of duties should be evaluated as one movement based on social opinions, barring special circumstances. Therefore, it should be viewed as a commercial competition relationship.

Article 45 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 81 High Court Decision 65

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by a fine of ten million won.

When the above fine is not paid, the amount of KRW 2,000 shall be confined in the workhouse for the period converted into one day.

The fifty-five days of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: first, the defendant did not have committed the crime of this case; however, the court below found the defendant guilty; second, the judgment of the court below is erroneous because the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable because the amount of punishment imposed by the defendant is too unreasonable.

According to the court below's decision, the court below examined ex officio the defendant's act of causing the victim non-indicted 1 and 2 and escaping from the scene of accident as stated in its decision, and applied Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and applied Article 77 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 45 (2) of the Road Traffic Act again, since the defendant did not report after the accident, the above two crimes are concurrent crimes. Thus, where the driver of a vehicle, etc. bears the duty of relief provided in Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the duty of reporting provided in paragraph (2) of the same Article, if the driver of the vehicle, etc. deserts from the scene of accident without the intention to perform all such duty, it is reasonable to interpret each of the above violations of duty provided in Article 50 of the Road Traffic Act as one social opinion.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that did not regard it as a commercial concurrent crime and judged it as a substantive concurrent crime has committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by erroneous application of law. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in this regard.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment is again ruled as follows.

The summary of the facts charged by a party member against the defendant and the summary of the evidence is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 77 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, Article 45 (2) of the same Act, Article 77 subparagraph 3 of the same Act, Article 38, and Article 55 of the same Act are applicable to the case where a person does not report after an accident. The violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act is a violation of Article 7 subparagraph 1 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 77 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 45 (2) of the same Act, and Article 40 of the same Act, since a person commits a violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 50 of the same Act, Article 50 of the same Act, and Article 77 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 50 of the same Act, and Article 50 of the same Act, since the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor and a fine for the violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 301 of the same Act shall not be imposed concurrently.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)