The case holding that it is impossible to recognize the escape of an accident driver;

운전사가 농무로 앞이 잘 안보이는 길을 운행하여 목적지에 도착한후 「휘일켑」이 없어진 것을 발견하고 혹시 본건 사고장소를 통과할 때 통행인을 다치게 한 것이 아닌가 의심하면서 본건 사고지점으로 다시 돌아와 보았으나 아무 흔적이 없어 그대로 되돌아 간 것 뿐이라면 도주의 범의가 있다고 볼 수 없다.

Article 5-3 of the Specific Crimes

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Incheon Branch Court Decision 75 Gohap99)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into KRW 1,000 per day.

85 days of detention before the sentence of the judgment below shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the defendant did not have committed the principal offense, but the court below found the defendant guilty. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts that could affect the judgment, and the gist of the prosecutor's appeal is that the judgment of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

그러므로 먼저 피고인의 사실오인의 주장에 대하여 보건대, 피고인은 경찰이래, 검찰, 원심 및 당심에 이르기까지 한결같이 피고인이 본건 공소사실에 적시된 일시 및 장소에서 피해자 공소외 1을 피고인의 차량으로 다치게 한 사실을 전혀 인식 못하였고, 나중에 목적지인 인천 올림포스호텔에 도착하여 휘일켑이 없어진 것을 발견하고서야 비로서 혹시 본건 사고장소를 통과할 때 통행인을 다친 것이 아닌가 의심하면서 본건 사고지점으로 다시 돌아와 보았던 바, 아무 흔적이 없어 그냥 되돌아간 것 뿐으로써, 피고인이 사고를 인식하면서도 피해자를 방치하고 도주한 일은 없다고 공소사실을 완강히 부인하고 있는바, 기록을 정사하여도 피고인의 위 일관된 변소에 어긋나는 아무런 자료가 없고, 오히려 기록에 의하면 피고인이 목적지인 인천 올림포스호텔에 도착하였다가 다시 본건 사고지점까지 되돌아가서 확인까지 해본 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 피고인의 위 변소는 수긍이 가고, 피고인이 피해자를 다쳤다는 것을 인식하면서 이를 방치하고 도주한 것이라는 공소사실을 인정하기에 넉넉한 자료가 없다.

Therefore, the facts charged against the defendant in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes should be pronounced not guilty without proof. Nevertheless, the court below's conviction is obvious that it misleads the defendant about the facts, and in this respect, the defendant's appeal is justified, and the court below's judgment is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The defendant is the operator of the vehicle at the time of non-indicted 2's possession (vehicle number omitted) of the representative of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as "non-indicted 2's representative). On December 27, 1974, at around 23:00, he is operating the above-mentioned vehicle at a speed of about 50 km in Incheon, a speed of 23:57 on the same day while driving the vehicle at a speed of 50 km, he is driving the vehicle at a speed of the above-mentioned vehicle in Seoul, and he is not negligent in stopping the vehicle at the left-hand side of the 3rd-gu Incheon Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 3:57 on the second line of the Incheon Special Metropolitan City, 23:57 on the day, before the front line of the Dong-gu Incheon Factory, and if there is an obstacle to the front line, the defendant who is engaged in driving service shall always have an obstacle to the right-hand side of the front line, and shall not take any action such obstacle on the left-hand side of the road.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement that conforms to the facts in the original judgment and the trial court of the defendant;

2. Each statement that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of the court below by Nonindicted 3, 4, and Defendant 1 as the witness of the court below

3. Entry of a report on actual condition investigation prepared by a judicial police officer;

4. Statement of the medical certificate of injury on Nonindicted 1 in Nonindicted 5’s preparation of Nonindicted 5

applicable provisions

Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 4(1) of the Provisional Measures such as Fines, etc. Act, Articles 69, 70, and 57 of the Criminal Act

Parts of innocence

The gist of the facts charged against the defendant is that the defendant is not guilty of the second-class driver (vehicle number omitted) of the non-indicted 2's representative located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted). On December 27, 1974, 23:00, the defendant is not guilty of the second-class driver's injury on the left side of the front-class police station at a speed of about 50 km in Incheon, Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, 23:57, and the second-class driver's duty of care should not be imposed on the second-class driver's duty of care to find out the second-class driver's injury without any delay of the second-class driver's duty of care and to prevent the second-class driver's injury on the left side of the front-class police station at a speed of 23:57, the second-class driver's duty of care and without any delay in the second-class driver's right side of the front-class police station.

Judges Oral-ho (Presiding Judge)