Do 2007 Do 9672 A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (A)

B. Violation of the Road Traffic Act

A person shall be appointed.

Housing City:

Seoul District Court Decision 200

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2007No 2015 Decided October 31, 2007

April 24, 2008

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be reversed, and the case Eul shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the court of first instance at the Suwon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

The summary of the public prosecution of this case is as follows: (a) around 02:30 on August 17, 2006, the defendant parked in the front of the steel station located in the luminous 3-dong mountain, with a light view to the luminous shooting range; (b) the defendant stopped in the front of the iron station located in the luminous 3-dong, with a light view to the luminous shooting range; (c) the defendant was unable to properly operate the transmission devices; and (d) the defendant did not find the victim's heading of the driver's stop in the front of the si in the front of the si in front of the si in front of the si in front of the si in front of the si in front of the si in front of the si in front of the si in front of the si in front of the si in front of the si in front of the si in front of the si in front of the si in front of the 3-school in front of the si in front of the k.

However, the court below found the victim guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the failure to take measures after the damage of property, on the ground that the victim was aware of the damage of the damaged vehicle due to the above accident without taking any measures, while the victim was found guilty of the violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the escape after the injury), it seems that the degree of shock caused by the above accident was very insignificant. After the accident, the victim reported to the police immediately after the accident, and the victim reported the accident to drive the vehicle of the defendant, and the hospital did not take measures such as medication, but it is difficult to view that there was a need for the victim to take relief, and that the victim was not guilty of this part of the accident, but dismissed this part of the accident, on the ground that the victim was a traffic accident under the Act on the Special Cases Concerning the Operation of Motor Vehicles within the scope of the indictment.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot agree with the decision of innocence as to the point of escape after the injury of the court below, for the following reasons.

Measures for the crime of escape after the injury under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is committed by a driver who commits a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to the transportation of a motor vehicle, etc., such as aiding the victim.

In other words, it is established when a person who caused an accident leaves the scene of the accident without doing so and causing a situation in which it is impossible to determine who is the person who caused the accident, and whether it is necessary to provide relief to the victim should be determined by comprehensively considering the circumstances and contents of the accident, the age and degree of the victim's injury, and the circumstances after the accident.

However, even according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the victim suffered bodily injury, such as fluoral salt, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment due to the accident of this case, and it cannot be said that there was no need for relief from the hospital on the following day. Moreover, as stated in the judgment of the court below on the fact that the defendant was aware of the fact of the accident of this case at least fluoral accident, as stated in the judgment of the court below on the fact that the defendant was aware of the fact of the accident of this case, it shall not be subject to measures such as immediately stopping and confirming the situation of the victim, and it shall not be subject to measures such as informing the victim of the personal information of the defendant Eul, etc., and thus, the defendant continued to drive the vehicle and continued to drive the vehicle thereafter. Thus, it is reasonable to deem the defendant's act to constitute the element of the injury and injury after escape.

I would like to raise an appeal.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the original court, which rendered a false judgment and rendered a different judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of escape after the injury, or in violation of the evidence collection rule, thereby misunderstanding the facts, and thereby misunderstanding the facts, which affected the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the original court on the point of escape after injury must be reversed. Since the facts of this part of the crime committed by the defendant are based on the relation between the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the non-measures after the damage of the property recognized as guilty by the original court and the crime of ordinary concurrent crimes, the entire judgment of the original court shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court of the original court for further proceedings consistent with all Justices who reviewed the case.

Justices Park Si-hwan

Justices Yang Sung-tae

Justices Park Il-hwan

Justices Kim Nung-hwan