[1] The meaning of "when a person 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

[2] The case holding that since a report made to the victim and the police station after a traffic accident can lead to the detection of a drunk driving, the victim's escape from the police station after entering the police station constitutes "the case where the victim returned to the police station" [the case]

[1] "When a driver 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 scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she knew that the victim was killed due to an accident, and causes a situation in which the identity of the person who caused

[2] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which held that the victim escaped from the scene of the accident without performing the duty of rescue and relief of the victim, even though there were various circumstances such as the victim's entry into the police station and gave the victim a notice of the defendant's occupation and name if he returned to the match after leaving the police station because the victim's report and the police station will be dismissed after the occurrence of the traffic accident

[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), Supreme Court Decision 95Do1680 delivered on November 24, 195 (Gong196Sang, 300)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yoon Yoon-chul

Changwon District Court Decision 95No1253 delivered on December 29, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "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, etc." refers to the case where the driver of an accident, despite his knowledge of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, runs away from the accident site before 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 he/she was killed or wounded, causing a situation where it is difficult to identify who caused the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1831, Apr. 10, 192; 94Do204, Oct. 21, 1994; 95Do1680, Nov. 24, 1995).

According to the records and the facts duly confirmed by the court below, the defendant caused the traffic accident in this case where the victim suffered from a fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)