[1] The meaning of "domination" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act

[2] The case holding that where the person causing a traffic accident stops near the accident site after the occurrence of the accident but denies the fact of the accident to the police officer's investigation and act as witness without taking relief measures for the victim at the accident site, it constitutes "a escape under Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act"

[1] The term "domination" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to the case where a driver of an accident is aware of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident and brings about a situation that could not be determined as the victim of an accident because he left the accident site before performing the duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

[2] The case holding that where a person caused a traffic accident and stopped near the site of the accident, but denies the fact of accident to the police officer's investigation and act as a witness without taking relief measures for the victim at the site of the accident, it constitutes "a escape under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

[1] Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act / [2] Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Do770 delivered on May 7, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1795) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Do1850 delivered on September 13, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2701) Supreme Court Decision 95Do1680 delivered on November 24, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 300), Supreme Court Decision 97Do2475 delivered on November 28, 1997 (Gong198Sang, 201), Supreme Court Decision 97Do3079 delivered on March 27, 198 (Gong198Sang, 1255) / [199Do19399 delivered on April 13, 199 (Gong19639Sang, 195)]

A

Defendant

Attorney B and one other

Daegu District Court Decision 9No388 delivered on August 4, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

"Dominants" referred to in Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to cases where a driver of an accident is aware of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident, but is absent from the accident site before performing his/her duty provided in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, and causing a situation that cannot be confirmed as the victim of the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2475, Nov. 28, 1997; 98Do3315, Apr. 13, 199).

Examining the adopted evidence of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, the defendant caused a traffic accident and stopped near the scene of the accident. However, even if the police officer was forced to voluntarily act in the police box at the request of the police officer, the fact of the accident is denied until he was pointed out that the shock trace was discovered, and even at the site of the accident, he did not take any relief measures against the victim and acted as witness. Thus, even if the defendant did not immediately leave the scene of the accident, the fact of the accident itself is not denied and the defendant did not take relief measures against the victim, so long as he did not leave the scene of the accident, it does not constitute "dominance" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the judgment of the court below does not contain any error of misconception of facts or incomplete deliberation due to a violation of the rules of evidence. All the arguments in the grounds of appeal disputing this point

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

Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)