[1] The meaning of "the case where" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment, Etc.

[2] The case holding that a traffic accident victim failed to perform his/her duty of rescue and relief and escaped

[1] 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 runs away from the accident site prior to performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim despite his/her awareness of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, and brings about

[2] The case holding that the defendant escaped from the accident site without performing the victim's duty to rescue if the victim's wife did not talk about his personal information or contact information to the victim, although the victim was in a situation where the victim was unable to walk out the left side of the vehicle due to a traffic accident, he did not take measures such as examining the upper part and degree of the victim's body, and he returned to the house without being able to take measures such as examining the damaged part and degree, and his wife remains at the scene, and he returned to the hospital, and his wife did not talk about his personal information or contact information to the victim, etc.

[1] Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Do1831 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1636), Supreme Court Decision 92Do3437 delivered on June 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2066), Supreme Court Decision 94Do2204 delivered on October 21, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3162)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Yong-ok

Daegu High Court Decision 95No225 delivered on June 21, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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, even though the driver of the accident knows that the victim was killed or injured, it refers to such cases as leaving the scene of the accident before performing the duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, causing undeterminedd situations (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1831, Apr. 10, 1992; 92Do3437, Jun. 11, 1993; 94Do204, Oct. 21, 1994, etc.).

According to the facts duly established by the court below, although the victim's breath of the instant traffic accident committed so that the victim's breath cannot get out of the port due to the traffic accident, the defendant did not take measures such as examining the upper part and degree of the victim's breath, and did not take measures around 400 meters away from the scene of the accident, and took away from the place of the accident to the defendant's house, and the defendant did not take the defendant's house to the defendant's house, and the defendant did not take care of the victim's breath of the instant traffic accident even after breath of the traffic accident, and the defendant did not know the victim's breath of the above breath of the accident, and the defendant did not take measures to inform the victim's 2nd of the above breath of the fact that breath of the defendant's contact with the defendant's breath of the above breath of the defendant's breath of the defendant's body.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)