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

[2] The case holding that the driver of the accident who did not rescue the victim and carried a witness constitutes an escape stipulated in the above paragraph 1

[1] "When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to a case where a driver of an accident runs away from the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim due to an accident, and brings about a situation that cannot be determined as the

[2] The case holding that, even if the driver of the accident was found to have been on the scene of the accident and was found to have been on the part of the driver, he did not inform him that he is the driver of the accident, but neglected to take relief measures by continuing to go to the police box having knowledge of the accident, and the victim was sent to the hospital by carrying out the police patrol vehicle, the driver did not fulfill the necessary measures such as aiding the person for the thought under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and even if he did not take such measures, even if he went back to the scene of the accident and returned to the police station after having been identified his identity, he shall be deemed to have escaped from the scene of the accident before performing the duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act

[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 Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Do1680 decided Nov. 24, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 300), Supreme Court Decision 96Do252 decided Apr. 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1481), Supreme Court Decision 96Do1415 decided Aug. 20, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2924), Supreme Court Decision 96Do2407 decided Dec. 6, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 295), Supreme Court Decision 96Do2407 decided Nov. 24, 1995 (Gong197Sang, 297; 96Do29497 decided Apr. 196, 196)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Hong-hoon

Busan District Court Decision 96No1987 delivered on February 19, 1997

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On March 20, 196, the lower court found that the Defendant appeared at the scene of the instant accident and her driver’s license of the Defendant, on the ground that he had been present at the scene of the instant accident on March 20, 1996 and opened the same on the road by shocking the victim’s left side of the Defendant’s vehicle. On the other hand, the lower court found the Defendant to have been present at the scene of the instant accident on the day on which he had been present at the scene of the accident and had the victim die immediately after the accident. While the Defendant tried to stop his vehicle in the vicinity of the scene of the accident immediately after the accident, the Defendant did not stop even though she had been present at the scene of the accident and had the police officer present at the scene of the accident and had the police officer present at the scene of the accident to have been present at the scene of the accident without any influence on the Defendant’s request for rescue. However, the Defendant did not know that the Defendant was a police officer at the scene of the accident after having been present at the scene of the accident.

Examining the relevant evidence compared with the records, the fact-finding by the court below is just and it cannot be deemed that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "when a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, etc." refers to cases where the driver of an accident leaves the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim due to an accident, and brings about a situation in which it cannot be confirmed as an accident reporter (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1831, Apr. 10, 192; 96Do252, Apr. 9, 196; 96Do2407, Dec. 6, 1996; 200Do1407, etc.). Thus, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the defendant did not appear in his/her opinion that he/she had been absent from the police station at the time of the accident scene but did not know that he/she had been aware of the accident scene.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)