(영문) 대법원 2012.8.30.선고 2012도3177 판결

1. The court below determined that according to the evidence adopted by the defendant as to whether the defendant had a criminal intent to escape, the court below determined that the defendant was unable to take necessary measures on the ground that the defendant's personal information was not properly notified to the victim at the time, and the defendant did not inform the victim of his personal information at the time, and the mobile phone number and address were true while the defendant was transferred to the emergency medical service worker at the time, and the patient was falsely told the victim of his name, and the hospital was leaving the hospital without receiving any particular medical treatment, and thus, the victim opened a door with the vehicle of the defendant and let the defendant out of the vehicle. The defendant was found to have been transferred to the hospital after the arrival of the ambulances, but the defendant did not take necessary measures on the ground that the defendant could not be confirmed as a person who caused the accident by leaving the site of this case without properly notifying his personal information.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter "the Act") provides that "in cases where a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim, etc." refers to cases where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim while recognizing the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident. However, the purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic danger and impediments on the road and ensure safe and smooth traffic by ensuring that the driver has to take such measures according to specific circumstances such as the content and degree of the accident, and the degree of such measures is ordinarily required in light of sound form. It also includes a driver of an accident at the scene of traffic accident, such as victim or police officer, to the extent that the driver is unable to protect his/her personal and safe order.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, although the defendant did not inform the victim of his personal information at the site of the accident in this case, notified him of his mobile phone number and address falsely to the 119 first responder from the hospital, and left the hospital without notifying him of his personal information even after having arrived at the hospital, the defendant lost his mind immediately after the accident in this case, and rather sent him to the hospital by the 119 first responder, and the name of the defendant was properly notified to the 119 first responder after the victim was rescued by the victim, and the name of the defendant was properly notified to the 119 first responder. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to view that the police officer's identity was relatively easily confirmed since the police officer attempted to communicate with the defendant with the above mobile phone number.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the defendant had a criminal intent to flee only on the ground of its ruling. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on escape as provided in Article 5-3 of the Act and the legal principles on measures at the time of occurrence of traffic accidents as provided in Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. 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.