In a case where the driver of a vehicle damages property through occupational or gross negligence and does not take necessary measures as prescribed in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, whether the crime as prescribed in Article 148 is established in addition to the crime as prescribed in Article 151 of the same Act (affirmative), and in this case, the number of crimes as prescribed in Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act (affirmative)

Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Do253 delivered on June 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1972) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6955 Delivered on February 17, 2005

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 2016No3898 Decided June 14, 2017

The judgment of the court below is reversed. The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the prosecutor's grounds of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is justifiable for the court below to have determined that the defendant did not take necessary measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act after the traffic accident in this case or did not have a criminal intent. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act or by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

2. Ex officio determination

A. A. The crime of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, which is punished under Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act, requires recognition of the existence of human thoughts and damage to things. The crime of Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, which is a criminal of negligence, is a crime of negligence, is entirely different from all the elements of the crime, such as protected legal interests, subject, act, etc. Therefore, if the driver of a vehicle damages property through occupational or gross negligence and fails to take necessary measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, the crime of Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act, in addition to the crime of Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, shall be established, and this shall be deemed as a substantial concurrent crime. Therefore, if the measure under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is instituted for a crime of Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act but the driver, etc. is not required to be tried and determined, it shall not be deemed as a crime of Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act.

B. As to the facts charged in this case that the defendant caused a traffic accident that damages three vehicles parked on the right side of the road by negligence of neglecting his duty of care while driving a motor vehicle, and did not immediately stop and take necessary measures, the court below determined that the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-measures after the accident) cannot be punished without proof of the crime, and that only the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act can be established due to the damage of property. Furthermore, as a crime falling under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, if the motor vehicle which caused a traffic accident is insured pursuant to Article 4(1) main sentence and Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant ex officio on the ground that the prosecution procedure constitutes invalid in violation of the provisions of law, and dismissed the prosecution of this case.

C. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed Measures after Accidents) and the number of crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the destruction of property by negligence, which affected the conclusion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and this case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment, and it shall not be remanded to the court below, and it shall be decided directly pursuant to Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is identical to that of the court below, and the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)