Whether the crime of occupational injury, occupational injury, etc. and the crime of non-compliance with the report of accident are concurrent crimes.

An act of driving a vehicle without taking relief measures and an act of failing to report the occurrence, etc. of a traffic accident to a police officer is not so-called commercial competition relationship, but substantial concurrent crimes.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 77 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 37 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court (76Gohap624)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months and by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand won.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 1,000 into one day.

The number of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentencing of the court below is excessively unreasonable in light of the fact that the defendant, who was driving by the defendant, escaped as it is while driving, can be seen as murder by willful negligence, and that the defendant did not immediately report the occurrence of an accident.

In light of the above, the court below decided that the defendant's act of escaping from the defendant without taking relief measures even though the defendant injured the victim and did not report the occurrence of the above traffic accident to the police officer, etc. However, since the type of the act and the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident differ from each other, the above crimes do not necessarily hold the defendant's duty to report the occurrence of the traffic accident, which is the latter person, inevitably concurrently with the duty to report the occurrence of the traffic accident. Thus, the court below's judgment should be regarded as a substantive concurrent crimes. Thus, since the application of the law and the judgment of the court below affected the decision, it is not necessary to judge the unfair sentencing of the prosecutor because it erred in the application of the law and affected the decision, it is not possible to escape the reversal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

The relationship between facts constituting an offense acknowledged by a member and the evidence thereof is the same as that of the court below, and they are cited as it is.

A judge of the first instance court shall be sentenced to imprisonment and a fine under Article 38 (1) 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 77 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 45 (2) of the same Act. Since the two crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Road Traffic Act, the fine shall be selected among the prescribed crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the above two crimes shall be sentenced to both imprisonment and a fine under Article 38 (1) 3 of the same Act, and the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment and a fine under Article 38 (1) 3 of the same Act, and the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and a fine under Article 53, Article 55 (1) 3 and 6 of the same Act, and a fine under Article 300 of the same Act shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and a fine under Article 3600 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)