(a) Whether the phrase “motor vehicle driver who has committed a crime provided for in Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to the traffic of the motor vehicle” provided for in Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes includes a driver who has

B. In a case where a person was indicted in violation of Article 5-3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 268 of the Criminal Act but his/her occupational negligence is not recognized, and only facts violating Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act are acknowledged, whether the person may be punished by applying Articles 106 and 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act without changing

(a) The term “motor vehicle driver who has committed a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to the traffic of the motor vehicle” in Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means a motor vehicle driver who has not caused the death or injury of a person due to occupational or gross negligence resulting from traffic of the motor vehicle but does not include a driver

B. The facts charged that a person commits a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act and runs away without taking measures under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, where a person was indicted for violation of Article 5-3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 268 of the Criminal Act but occupational negligence is not recognized, even if the facts of violation of Article 50(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes are acknowledged, the facts of violation of Article 50(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes should be pronounced not guilty,

(a)Article 5ter(1), Article 268 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 50(1) and Article 106(b) of the Road Traffic Act; Articles 254 and 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Jeong Tae-won

Seoul High Court Decision 90No3224 delivered on January 11, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the records, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below and there is no violation of the rules of evidence selection.

2. The term “motor vehicle driver who has committed a crime as prescribed in Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to the traffic of the motor vehicle” provided for in Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall not include any accident-free driver who has caused the death or injury of people due to occupational or gross negligence resulting from the traffic of the motor vehicle, nor shall he include any accident-free driver who has caused the death or injury of people. In case where the accident-free driver who has not been negligent runs away without taking the measures as prescribed in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, he shall not be held liable for the violation of Article

3. In addition, the facts charged that the defendant committed a crime as prescribed in Article 268 of the Criminal Act and escaped without taking measures as prescribed in Article 50(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act despite having committed a crime as prescribed in Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, in the case of this case prosecuted for violation of Article 268 of the Criminal Act, in the case of violation of Article 5-3(1)1 of the Act on Special Measures, in the case of not recognized as occupational negligence, it should be pronounced not guilty where there is no proof of the facts of violation of Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and it shall not be punished by applying Articles 10

4. Therefore, all arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)