[1] The meaning of "when a person runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim" and the method of determining whether a person falls under such provision

[2] The case holding that even if a driver of an accident caused a passenger to make a false report on the scene of the accident, if he/she received an accident from an insurance company without leaving the scene immediately after the accident occurred, and the police officer knew that the above vehicle is a harming vehicle and confirmed to the police officer that he/she was a harming vehicle, and if he/she voluntarily retrieves the police after undergoing an investigation with the same passenger, it does not constitute an escape under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

[1] Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 54 (1)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1738 Decided October 11, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1784) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4986 Decided November 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 286) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5748 Decided March 25, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1113) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8264 Decided September 6, 2007)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008No2325 Decided September 11, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

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 as prescribed in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim.” The term “when a driver of an accident knows a victim of an accident,” refers to a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident because he deserts the scene prior to the performance of his duty as prescribed in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, although he knows the victim of an accident.” The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic danger and obstacle that occur on the road and ensure safe and smooth traffic, such measures to be taken by the driver shall also be considered to the extent of ordinary necessity in light of sound form, and such measures shall also be included to the extent that the driver is unable to protect the victim’s personal safety and order by taking into account the following circumstances: (i) whether the driver is a victim of an accident and other persons related to a traffic accident, including a police officer.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence. Even if the defendant had co-defendant 2 of the court below, who was a passenger at the scene of a traffic accident, make a false report as if he was the driver of the vehicle of this case, the defendant was found not guilty in the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, among the facts charged against the defendant, on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the defendant had a criminal intent to escape before he performed his duty such as aiding the victim, even though the defendant confirmed the victim's damage without leaving the place of accident immediately after the accident, and immediately stated that the police officer dispatched the vehicle of this case is a sea-going vehicle. At the police officer's request, the above co-defendant 2 of the court below was accompanied with the above co-defendant 2 of the court below, and returned to the police after being investigated, and voluntarily returned to the police, and voluntarily surrendered the defendant.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the above act of the defendant can be deemed as not performing the duty to identify the driver of the accident among the measures stipulated in Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act by the driver who killed or killed by the traffic of the motor vehicle in the appearance of the external form, and the person related to the traffic accident such as the victim or the police officer, etc., but in light of various circumstances recognized by the court below, it is difficult to see that the driver of the accident site was absent from the accident site with the criminal intent of the escape. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that this part of

As alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on escape provided in Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the legal principles on measures in the event of traffic accidents provided in Article 54 (1)

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)