[1] In a case where it is not deemed necessary to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim by an accident driver, whether it may be punished for a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

[2] Purport of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the degree of measures to be taken by an accident driver

[3] The case holding that it is difficult for an accident driver to consider that he has a duty to rescue the victim or to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act in light of the accident circumstance and degree of damage

[1] In light of the legislative intent and protected legal interest of the provision on the aggravated punishment of drivers of escape vehicles under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, in a case where it is not deemed necessary to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as providing relief to victims, in full view of the details of the accident, victim’s age and degree of injury, circumstances after the accident, etc., even if the accident driver actually leaves the accident place without taking measures such as aiding victims, it does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment,

[2] The purpose of Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic dangers and obstacles occurring on the road, not to restore victims' damage. In this case, measures to be taken by drivers are to be taken according to specific circumstances, such as the contents of the accident and the degree of damage, and measures to the extent that such measures are ordinarily required in light of sound form.

[3] The case holding that it is difficult for an accident driver to consider that the accident driver has a duty to rescue the victim or to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act in light of the accident circumstance and degree of damage

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

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2001 decided Jun. 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1893) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 97Do2396 decided Dec. 12, 1997 (Gong198Sang, 361), Supreme Court Decision 99Do3910 decided Feb. 25, 200 (Gong200Sang, 893), Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2763 decided Jan. 11, 2002 (Gong209Da2949 decided Jan. 11, 202); Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2869 decided Jan. 29, 202 (Gong2002Sang, 504); Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2979 decided Jan. 11, 2002)

A

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 2002No443 delivered on July 31, 2002

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. The court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Road Traffic and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Road Traffic at the time of the occurrence of traffic accidents) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Road Traffic Act (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc.).

2. However, in light of the legislative intent and protected legal interest of the provision on the aggravated punishment of the driver of a flight vehicle under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, if it is not acknowledged that there was a need to take measures under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as providing relief to the victim, the accident driver does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes even if the accident driver actually leaves the accident place without taking such measures as aiding the victim, etc. In addition, the purpose of Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and remove traffic risks and obstacles that occur on the road and ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic, and in such cases, measures to be taken by the driver shall be taken according to the specific circumstances such as the contents and degree of damage, etc. of the accident, and the degree of such measures shall be taken according to the degree of ordinary demand in light of sound forms (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do2012, Jun. 28, 2002).

In this case, the Defendant: (a) while under the influence of alcohol content 0.181%, the Defendant: (b) while driving the said rocketing car and returned to the house; (c) when driving the vehicle on the alleyway while blocking the length of the vehicle at the front; (d) confirmed the collision part of the vehicle with the victims getting out of the vehicle; and (e) driven the said rocketing car at a speed of about 20 km to the front of the accident at the speed of about 20 km away from the accident site; and (e) opened the vehicle at the front of the Defendant’s house, the Defendant reported the Defendant’s drinking operation to the police; and (e) submitted the report on the Defendant’s drinking operation to the police station; and (e) submitted the report on the victims of the accident to the outside of the vehicle at the direction of the police station, and (e) submitted the report on the accident to the police station at the direction of the police station at the direction of the police station at the time of the accident and the report on the accident to the victims.

As such, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant had the intent to flee in light of the situation and the following circumstances of the instant accident, such as the fact that the defendant examined the situation of the collision with the victims after the accident and moved the vehicle to the close place near the scene of the accident where the vehicle was in the length of the vehicle, and consulted with the victims about the method of compensating for the damage, etc. In addition, considering the victim's side and degree, the degree of the victim's injury, the degree of the damage of the damaged vehicle, the situation of the accident place, the attitude of the victims after the accident, etc., it is difficult to deem that it was necessary to take measures to rescue the victims or to prevent and eliminate traffic danger and damage and ensure safe and smooth traffic. Thus, the defendant cannot be punished for a violation of Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the defendant exceeded the place of the accident without taking measures under Article 50 (1)

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) that did not take measures against the Defendant at the time of occurrence of a traffic accident is erroneous by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violating Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act and Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the grounds of appeal pointing this out are reasonable,

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)