[1] The meaning of "when a person runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding a victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes"

[2] The case holding that even if the defendant, as the driver of the accident, did not go to the hospital and the police without any speech while being sent to the hospital by the police after being injured and being treated by the police, it does not constitute "when the defendant escaped without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as aiding the victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act

[1] "When a driver runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" means a case where the driver of an accident, although he knows that the victim was killed due to an accident, leaving the scene of the accident before fulfilling his duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, brings about a situation that cannot be confirmed as the victim

[2] The case holding that even if the defendant, who was the driver of the accident, was injured and was sent to the hospital by the police and did not contact with the police without any speech, it does not constitute "when the defendant escaped without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, on the ground that the police had already taken measures such as aiding the victim at the time, etc.

[1] Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act / [2] Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Do1680 delivered on November 24, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 300), Supreme Court Decision 97Do2475 delivered on November 28, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 201), Supreme Court Decision 98Do34 delivered on March 24, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 97Do3079 delivered on March 27, 199 (Gong198Sang, 1255)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 97No2468 delivered on September 10, 1998

The appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below found the defendant to have been absent from the police station because the defendant was carrying a passenger-friendly ship on his own life and driving a road without a central line, and caused a traffic accident under which the driver's vehicle was driven at the port of bend to the port due to the error of driving the vehicle at the opposite direction, and the defendant was seated about 10 minutes due to the injury, such as her head from the above accident, and her arms and legs are finished at the free will, but it was thought that the accident had occurred due to the failure to get the driver's license on the part of the defendant and the "I would like to get the driver's license to get the driver's license to get the driver's license to get the driver's license to get the driver's license to get the driver's license to get the driver's license to get the driver's license to get the driver's license to get the driver's license to get the driver's license to get the driver's license to get the driver's license to get the driver's license to get the police.

In this regard, the fact-finding by the court below is justified, and there is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence. Therefore, the grounds of appeal on this point shall not be accepted.

2. "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 under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" refers to a case where the driver of an accident, although he was aware of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, leaving the place of accident before performing his duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, and causing a situation that cannot be confirmed as the victim of the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do34 delivered on March 24, 1998). In this case, the defendant suffered the injury and sent it to the hospital by the police, but does not leave the place of accident. Even if the defendant did not go to the hospital and the police without going through a medical treatment after being transmitted to the hospital, it is already taken measures such as aiding the victim by the police at that time, and thus, the defendant cannot be viewed as a situation where the accident occurred before discharging his duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) shall be justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)