beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the Defendant did not recognize the occurrence of an accident, there was no intention to flee, and the injury suffered by the victim at the time of the instant accident was a minor injury and there was no need to take relief measures.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. In light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of a fugitive driver under Article 5-3 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act and the protected legal interest thereof, in a case where it is not acknowledged that the accident driver required to take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as the actual rescue of the victim, etc., even if the accident driver left the place for the accident without taking measures such as aiding the victim, the crime of violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Specific Crimes Act should not be established. However, whether there was a need to take measures such as aiding the victim in fact should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the course and contents of the accident, the age and degree of the victim, the part and degree of the injury, and the circumstances after the accident. However, in light of the fact that Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act grants emergency relief responsibility to the person who caused the accident, it is recognized that there was no need to take relief measures such as aiding the victim.
No other emergency measure is necessary, objective and clear at the time immediately after the accident should be objectively and clearly revealed. However, it cannot be readily concluded that there was no need to take such measures solely on the ground that there was no significant inconvenience in the victim’s movement immediately after the accident, there was no significant external appearance, and the degree of damage was proven relatively minor and later.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do214, Mar. 13, 2014). In addition, there are several cases.