(영문) 수원지방법원 2009.3.31.선고 2008노6065 판결

Since the defendant suffered injury to the victim to take relief measures, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established due to escape.

2. Summary of the facts charged

On October 00, 200: Around 00: Around 00, the Defendant driven a shuttle-si car 71Na0000, and, at the same time, at the speed of 20 km speed from the 9-dong Saemaeul apartment located in Ansan-si, the first road in front of Ansan-si to the west apartment. At that time, the location is a road adjacent to the apartment where the width is narrow, so at that time, the Defendant was negligent in operating the road by neglecting the duty of care to check whether the safety distance has been secured with pedestrians and prevent the accident, and the victim A (the 29-year old) who was coming from the right part of the right part of the Defendant’s car 71 or000, coming from the front of the direction of the Defendant’s running, shocked with the front side of the said car, and did not immediately stop the victim and take necessary measures, such as making the victim escape.

3. The judgment of the court below

The court below found that the defendant was faced with the victim who walked in front of the right side of the above vehicle while driving at a speed of about 20 km for only one apartment road, and that the victim's right side and the right side part (half part of hand and elbows) of the victim's right side while driving in front of the above vehicle at a speed of about 20 km, and the defendant found that the aftermath of the above vehicle is in contact with the victim and stopped the vehicle at an excessive point of about 10 meters after the aftermath of the above vehicle, and did not cause any particular damage, but left the scene of the accident. Since the defendant did not appear to have been charged for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, it stated that the defendant did not have any specific opinion on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and did not have any specific opinion on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the victim did not have any specific opinion on the violation of the Act on the day of the Act.

4. Judgment of the court below

In light of the evidence duly admitted at the court below, it is not recognized that it was necessary to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim, in full view of the following facts: (a) the facts acknowledged by the court below are recognized; (b) the background and content of the above accident; (c) the victim's injury level and degree of negligence; (d) the driver of the accident and the victim's age and gender; and (e) the circumstances after the accident, etc. (e) the defendant's injury was committed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3272, Sept. 24, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 200Do3272, Sept. 24, 200); and (e) the so-called "injury" under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, which could not be assessed as a "injury to the life or body," and there is no need to treat the victim as an upper part, thereby infringing the health condition (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do99, Feb. 19, 20009, etc.

Therefore, the court below's decision on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is just and dismissed, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the prosecutor. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.