[1] The standard for determining the necessity of "measures in the event of an accident" under Article 5-3 (1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes or Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act

[2] The case holding that since the defendant recognized the occurrence of the above accident even if he did not do so, it was necessary to take measures such as relief of the victim in violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes or Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act, in light of the circumstance of the accident, degree of damage, such as injury, damage, etc., and the fact that he applied for on the side of the damaged vehicle during a potential motor vehicle after the accident, who was driven as it and was able to drive it

[1] Article 5-3(1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010); Article 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 10382, Jul. 23, 2010); Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 268 of the Criminal Act; Article 5-3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010); Article 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 10382, Jul. 23, 2010); Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do5023 Decided March 28, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 1118), Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4452 Decided October 22, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2926), Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2085 Decided May 10, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9672 Decided April 24, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1339 Decided July 10, 208

Defendant

Defendant

Incheon District Court Decision 2009No3222 Decided January 8, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the legislative intent and protected legal interests of Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) and Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act, in a case where it is deemed necessary for an accident driver to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as providing relief to the victim, if the accident driver does not take such measures as providing relief to the victim, and even if the accident driver leaves the scene, it does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3(1) of the Special Cases Act or a violation of Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act. However, the existence of the need to take such measures should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s parts and degree, the circumstances after the accident occurred, the period, time and details of medical treatment, the age and degree of the victim’s injury, and the age and health condition of the victim, etc., but in light of the case, it should be determined whether the defendant provided an opportunity to provide relief to the victim by directly communicating with the victim, or not necessary (see 207).

원심이 인정한 사실과 기록에 의하면, 피고인은 맞은편에서 직진하다가 피고인 운전의 승용차가 진행하는 것을 보고 멈춰 서 있던 피해자 공소외 1이 운전하던 승용차의 운전석 뒷부분을 피고인 차량의 왼쪽 앞부분으로 들이받았고, 위 사고로 피해자 공소외 1 및 피해차량에 동승하고 있던 피해자 공소외 2가 각 2주간의 치료를 요하는 경추부 염좌 등의 상해를 입고, 피해차량의 뒷범퍼 등이 수리비 719,200원 상당이 들 정도로 손괴된 점, 피해자들은 당시 쿵소리가 나고 차체가 흔들렸다고 진술하고 있는 점, 피고인은 이 사건 사고 후에 차에서 내리지도 아니한 채 잠깐 동안 피해차량 쪽을 응시한 후 피고인 차량을 후진하였다가 그대로 운전하여 간 점, 이에 피해자 공소외 1이 피고인 차량을 쫓아가 피고인에게 ‘사고를 내고 왜 그냥 가냐’고 말하자 피고인이 ‘니 마음대로 해라, 어쩔 거냐’고 말한 점을 알 수 있는바, 그렇다면 피고인으로서는 미필적으로라도 이 사건 사고의 발생 사실을 인식하였다고 봄이 상당하고, 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 피고인이 사고 후에 피해자를 구호하는 등의 조치를 취할 필요가 있었다고 봄이 상당하다.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act and Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act or in violation of the rules of evidence

2. In addition, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair

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

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)