[1] The degree of injury for the establishment of a crime of escape driving under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

[2] The case denying the establishment of a crime of escape under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes on the grounds that it cannot be viewed as a "injury" under the Criminal Act in light of the degree of collision and shock of vehicles involved in the accident, degree of injury to the victims, and degree and degree of injury

[3] Purport of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the degree of measures to be taken by an accident driver

[1] Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 5

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1405 Decided April 13, 2007 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do3910 Decided February 25, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 893) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Do2691 Decided January 24, 1995 (195Sang, 1191), Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2001 Decided June 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1893)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 2007No1432 Decided March 28, 2008

The part of the judgment below on the violation of the Road Traffic Act shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division. The remaining appeal shall be dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc.” refers to a case where the driver of an accident, despite the awareness that the victim was killed or injured, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed. Therefore, in order for the crime of escape to be established, the result of his/her thought must arise. In order to establish the crime of escape, the mere danger to life or body is limited, or annoying, to the extent that it cannot be assessed as “injury” under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, and thus it is difficult to deem that the crime is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do3910, Feb. 25, 2000>

The court below found the victims of this case's accident to be conflict with the victim's 5-lanes in the process of intentionally changing the victim's body due to the victim's 5-lanes. According to the image of the victim's harming vehicle, it seems that the degree of shock would not have been serious, and the victim's non-indicted 1 did not appeal the victim's body to the police officer in charge after reporting the accident to the Jeju Police Station immediately after the accident. However, according to the victim's statement that "the victim's disease occurred in the above accident and the degree of injury is the same as the victim's disease," the victim's disease was not the victim's disease's "the victim's disease and the victim's body was affected by the 5-lanes of the boness, tensions, tensions, and tensions of the boness," and the victim's body was not the victim's body and the victim's opinion that it could not interfere with the patient's daily life."

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as incomplete hearing, etc. as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the violation of the Road Traffic Act

A. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

Of the facts charged in this case, the point of violation of the Road Traffic Act is that the defendant is a person engaged in driving a vehicle at Jeonbuk-dong (number 1 omitted). On November 13:10, 2006, the defendant driving the above vehicle and driving it on the 13:10 minutes before and after driving on the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day.

In regard to this, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there was a need to take measures to prevent and eliminate traffic hazards and obstacles and to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic in this case, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there was a need to take measures to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic by preventing and removing traffic hazards and obstacles in this case. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there was a need to take measures to prevent and remove traffic hazards and obstacles in this case.

B. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on roads to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, not to restore victims' damage. In this case, measures to be taken by drivers should be appropriately taken according to specific circumstances, such as the content of accidents and the degree of damage, and measures to the extent that is normally required in light of sound form (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2001, Jun. 28, 2002, etc.).

According to the records, at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant driven the Defendant’s vehicle at approximately 70 km in speed, and changed the lane from the two lanes to the one lane, among the two lanes, and knew of the fact that at the time, the damaged vehicle was on board the driver, etc., and the damaged vehicle was damaged by the fronter to repair cost of KRW 427,58,00 due to the instant accident; the Defendant proceeded without stopping immediately after the accident; the driver of the damaged vehicle stopped the movement due to the stop signal at the front line of the traffic distance; and the instant accident site was a two-lane road at speed, and the time of the accident was low, and the road traffic accident was insignificant. On the other hand, the Defendant did not immediately stop and stop the traffic accident at the time, and even if it did not interfere with the traffic accident under the provisions of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, it was obvious that the Defendant did not immediately stop and stop the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that it is difficult to view that the defendant was merely a minor contact accident, and thus it was necessary to take measures to prevent and remove traffic danger and obstacles at the time of leaving the accident site to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow. The court below found the defendant not guilty of the above charged facts. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the Road Traffic Act is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)