Where a driver, etc. who has paid a traffic accident is liable to report under the main sentence of Article 54 (2) of the Road Traffic Act and interpretation of the proviso of the same Article.

Articles 11(1) and 12(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 54(2) and 154 subparag. 4 of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Do1013 delivered on June 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 2075) Supreme Court Decision 91Do2027 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong192, 163)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Cheongju District Court Decision 2013No645 decided November 21, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The main sentence of Article 54 (2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver and other crew members of the relevant vehicle shall report without delay to the police officer when the police officer is present at the scene, the place where the accident occurred in the nearest national police station (including district police units, police boxes and branch offices) where the police officer is present at the scene, the number of casualties and the degree of injury, the goods damaged and the degree of damage, the degree of other measures taken, etc., such as the degree of the damage.

The above duty to report under the Road Traffic Act is to ensure the maintenance and safety of traffic by informing a police officer or police office of the occurrence of a traffic accident without delay to take appropriate measures such as the relief of victims and the restoration of traffic order. In light of the legislative intent of the provision on duty to report under the Road Traffic Act, the right to refuse to make statements and the principle of equality guaranteed under the Constitution, the duty to report drivers, etc. who have caused the traffic accident shall be interpreted to be limited to cases where it is deemed necessary to take the organizational measures of police officers beyond the personal measures of the victims in order to rescue victims and restore the order of traffic according to the size of the accident or the specific circumstances at the time of the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1013, Jun. 25, 1991).

In addition, the newly established proviso of the above provision provides that "the same shall not apply in a case where it is clear that only a vehicle in operation has been damaged and measures necessary for the prevention of danger and smooth communication on the road have been taken."

In the same purport, the court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the grounds that there is no proof of crime, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 54 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, contrary to what is alleged in the

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

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)