[1] The meaning of "when a person runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

[2] The case holding that the "measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act" cannot be deemed to have been taken in case where the victim, etc. went away from the hospital without disclosing his identity to the victim, etc., even though the driver was engaged in relief measures such as sending the victim to the hospital for treatment, etc.

[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 Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 50 (1) of the Road

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5748 decided Mar. 25, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1113)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Daejeon District Office

Daejeon District Court Decision 2005No960 Decided October 7, 2005

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

1. The judgment of innocence by the court below

On September 2, 200, the lower court: (a) it is difficult for the Defendant to immediately reverse the instant accident report to the Jeju Hospital located near the instant accident after having paid the instant accident at around 10:0; (b) the employee of the Jeju Hospital was well aware of the Defendant; (c) the Defendant immediately sent the victim of the instant accident to the instant hospital; (d) as it is inappropriate for the Defendant to diagnose the victim of the traffic accident; (b) the instant hospital received medical insurance card from the victim; (c) the said hospital’s contact with the victim; (d) the Nonindicted Party left the said hospital; and (e) the Nonindicted Party sent the victim the instant accident to the said hospital on the ground that the Nonindicted Party did not know the Defendant’s identity and whereabouts; and (e) reported the accident to the police or police officer of the instant accident; and (e) reported the accident to the said hospital’s contact with the victim on the date of the instant accident; and (e) determined that the Nonindicted Party’s contact with the victim on the ground that it did not constitute an accident at least 180 days.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

“A case where a driver runs away without taking measures under Article 50(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” in Article 5-3(1) of the same Act refers to a case where a driver of an accident does not take measures under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act despite the victim’s awareness of the fact that he/she was killed due to an accident and brings about a situation in which it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident because he/she escaped from the accident place. As such, “measures under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act” includes identifying the person related to a traffic accident, such as a victim or police officer, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5748, Mar. 25, 2003, etc.).

Even according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, if the defendant escaped from the hospital without disclosing his identity to the victim or any other person related to the hospital or police officer investigating the traffic accident of this case before leaving the hospital, the defendant can be found to have not shown the identity of the defendant, and even if an employee in charge of receipt of the Japan Hospital, who had been working before the hospital, was aware of the defendant and the victim, or the defendant was suffering from the clothes of the company's working at the hospital, it cannot be seen that the defendant knew or could easily find the defendant. Thus, if the defendant escaped from the hospital without disclosing his identity to the victim when it cannot be easily confirmed that the victim was the victim's identity, this constitutes a case where the defendant could not be confirmed. Thus, even if the defendant took relief measures such as sending the victim after the traffic accident of this case, it can not be seen that the defendant had known that the defendant had been working at the hospital and the police officer's identity of the defendant without disclosing his identity in light of the traffic accident situation of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant was not guilty of the charges of this case on the ground that the defendant took all measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act before leaving the hospital solely based on the facts such as the fact that the defendant sent the victim to the hospital and received treatment. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on escape under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes or by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)