[1] In a case where it is not deemed necessary to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim by an accident driver, whether it may be punished for a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

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

[3] The case holding that it is difficult for an accident driver to consider that the accident driver has a duty to rescue the victim or to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act in light of the form and degree of damage of the vehicle, the attitude of the victim after the accident

[1] Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "when a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim of an accident, etc." refers to a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident because the driver escaped from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim despite the driver's awareness of the fact that the victim was killed or injured. However, Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes does not provide a sound and reasonable traffic order corresponding to the shock of a motor vehicle and a traffic accident. In light of the fact that the driver of an accident escaped without taking measures such as aiding the victim of the accident, taking into account a strong ethical criticism possibility, protecting the public interest of traffic safety by aggravated punishment, protecting personal legal interests of the victim's life and body, such as safety of the victim, the situation and degree of the accident, etc.

[2] 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 the physical damage of victims. In this case, measures to be taken by drivers on the road shall be appropriately taken according to the circumstances in the accident scene, such as the contents of the accident, the degree of damage, and the degree of damage, and the degree of measures to be normally required in light of sound form.

[3] The case holding that it is difficult for an accident driver to consider that he has a duty to rescue the victim or to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act in light of the form and degree of damage of the vehicle, the attitude of the victim after the accident, etc.

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2763 Delivered on January 11, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 504)/ [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Do2462 Delivered on February 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1120), Supreme Court Decision 93Do2346 Delivered on November 26, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 227), Supreme Court Decision 94Do2691 Delivered on January 24, 195 (Gong195Sang, 1191), Supreme Court Decision 9Do31409 delivered on November 12, 1999 (Gong195Sang, 191)

A

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 2001No2752 delivered on April 11, 2002

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

1. Summary of the judgment below

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant is a driver of the rocketing passenger vehicle, and around 18:00 on October 3, 200, the Defendant was driving the said vehicle, driving the said vehicle in front of the D Hospital located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and driving it in the direction of the climout at the seat of the park at the seat of the park, and did not keep the climout seat well, due to occupational negligence, the part of the left-hand part of the victim E-operation Fpppppppppppppppppppppppppp motor vehicle in the front direction of the course of the course of the course of the course of the course of the course of the course of the course of the operation. The Defendant was guilty of the facts charged by the judgment of the lower court, which found the Defendant guilty of all the above facts charged.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

Article 50(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under the provisions of Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim of an accident” refers to a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident by leaving the accident site prior to the performance of his/her obligations under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim despite the awareness of the fact that the victim was killed or wounded. However, Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes does not provide sound and reasonable traffic order corresponding to the symptoms of a motor vehicle and a traffic accident. In light of the legislative purport that the act of a driver who runs away without taking measures such as aiding the victim of the accident, such as aiding the victim of the accident, it is deemed that there is no need to punish the driver of an accident and the driver of an accident under the provisions of Article 50(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act for safe and efficient rehabilitation of the victim of the accident.

Of the evidence admitted by the court below, the victim E’s statement conflicts with another victim’s vehicle in front of the crosswalk, and due to the shock, the victim’s timber who was seated in the driver’s seat of the damaged vehicle and suffered the same injury as the facts charged. After the accident, the victim passed the above accident to the defendant, and then the victim runs the vehicle to the hospital while driving the vehicle in front of the victim.

However, according to the records, the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle caused by the accident of this case is about the degree of 10,00,000 left-hand flab, and it is difficult for the victim to take measures such as 0,000,000 won of the victim's 15,000,000 won for the repair of the damaged vehicle due to the accident of this case and 15,210,000,000 won of the victim's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00.

Nevertheless, as seen earlier, the court below concluded that there was evidence for all the facts charged of this case. In doing so, it erred by misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence, or by misunderstanding the legal principles on Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the ground of appeal pointing

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)