The meaning of Article 5-3 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes "when a accident driver moves a victim from the place of accident and abandons the victim."

In light of the fact that Article 5-3(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides a very heavy punishment compared to the crime of murder as provided in Article 250 of the Criminal Act, where the accident driver moves the victim from the accident place and abandons the victim from the accident place" as provided in the above Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, it should be interpreted as "where the accident driver moves the victim from the accident place to the accident place and runs away from the accident place" as "when the accident driver moves the victim at least from the accident place to the accident place where it is not easy to detect the crime or destroy the evidence".

Articles 250 and 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 50 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Defendant

Masan District Court of the first instance (86 Gohap408)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

One hundred and twenty-five days out of the detention days before the sentence is made shall be included in the above sentence.

The gist of the first ground for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel is that the defendant escaped without taking measures such as aiding and abetting the victim after causing the traffic accident in this case. However, since the defendant transferred the victim on the road due to the injury such as brain flasor, etc. to another vehicle or obstructing another vehicle, it cannot be said that such act constitutes a case where "accident driver moved from the place of accident and abandons the victim from the place of accident" under Article 5-3 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the court below's determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is erroneous, and the summary of the second ground for appeal and the ground for appeal by the defendant are two points of the same ground for appeal. The defendant's moving of the victim to the road and the moving of the victim to the road was done in accordance with the joint defendant's moving to the same vehicle while the accident occurred, and the defendant's moving to the road is made in accordance with the compensation for damages to the defendant's bereaved family after the occurrence of the accident.

Therefore, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the first ground for appeal was examined as to the first ground for appeal, and the fact that, at around 18:30 on October 26, 1986, the defendant was driving a truck on the national highway of 2.5 tons on the national highway of Masan-do, Musan-do, Masan-do, and the first ground for appeal, and the defendant was aware that he was seriously injured by the victim of this case due to the shock of the victim of this case, and died of the victim being used on the roadway, and that he was aware that he was the victim of this case, and that he was the victim of this case, and that he was killed by the victim of this case at around 4 meters away from the point where the victim was in front along with the joint defendant of the court below who was the next co-defendant, and had the victim escape after moving to the main entrance of India at around 20:40 on the same day, it caused the victim's death of the victim at the heart and the heart.

However, Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver or other crew members of the vehicle shall immediately stop the vehicle and provide assistance to casualties when the driver of the vehicle causes death or injury to the victim due to traffic of the vehicle. Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that the driver who commits the crime under Article 268 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be punished by imprisonment for life or for not less than five years if the driver abscondss or dies after the escape, and Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that the driver shall be punished by imprisonment for a limited term of not less than one year if the driver of the accident moves from the scene and abandons the victim, or if the victim dies after the escape, he shall not be punished by death or imprisonment for life or for not less than 10 years, and Article 50 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 50-3 (2) of the Act provides that the driver shall not be punished by imprisonment for more than 2).

Therefore, the defendant's act in this case is nothing more than 4 meters away from the point where the defendant was aware that he died of the victim of this case, and there is no circumstance to deem that the defendant committed a special act in order to conceal or destroy evidence of the crime. Thus, the defendant's act does not constitute "when he moved the victim from the place where the accident occurred, abandons the victim from the place where the accident occurred" as provided in Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below which sentenced the defendant to this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to this, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is decided as follows without any amendment procedure within the limit of the facts charged.

The criminal facts and evidence acknowledged as a member of the party include "the defendant Kim Jong-soo" in the first place of the criminal facts in the original trial after inserting "(vehicle number omitted) 2.5 tons of the (vehicle number omitted)," "after the discussion about the intention to abandon and flee" in the 13 and 14, "after the removal" in the 16th place, "after the removal" is changed to "after the removal", and the statement of the defendant and the witness co-defendant in the original trial court are the same as that of the timely statement of the court below except for the case where the statement of the defendant and the witness co-defendant in the original trial court are taken as evidence. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the same Act.

However, the so-called judgment of the defendant falls under Article 5-3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act are applicable to the first offense after the accident, and the defendant, as a first offender, runs away from the joint defendant under the promotion of the court below's decision, and there is a reason to take into account the circumstances, such as the fact that the error was divided and the victim's bereaved family members were compensated, and that the victim's bereaved family members agreed to compensate for damages. Thus, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and six months within the period of punishment under Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act, and one hundred twenty-five days from the number of detention days before the sentence is included in the above punishment.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Lee Il-young (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-young (Presiding Judge)