[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 recognizing the criminal intent of escape in a case where the perpetrator reported the victim who suffered the injury at the vehicle and went away as it was, about 20 minutes after leaving the scene with the third party for relief

[1] "When a driver 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 the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of the accident before performing his duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he knows that the victim was killed due to an accident, resulting in a situation that cannot be determined as the victim of the accident.

[2] The case holding that although the defendant had taken necessary measures such as taking a minimum emergency measure against the victims, sending them back to the hospital, and immediately sending them back to the police station or hospital without getting off the vehicle, if the two victims were to have access to the vehicle, and the two victims were to keep the vehicle out of the site, even if the victims were to be a woman with small physical strength, and even if the victims thought that the time and place of the accident could not take relief measures due to the victim's power, the defendant should have taken necessary measures, such as making the victims take a minimum measure, sending them back to the hospital, or making contact or report to the police station or hospital, etc. after leaving the scene, it should be considered that the defendant was a criminal intent to escape under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, even if the defendant left the scene to rescue victims after about 20 minutes of the accident without getting out of the vehicle.

[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] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Do1680 delivered on November 24, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 300), Supreme Court Decision 96Do252 delivered on April 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1481), Supreme Court Decision 96Do1415 delivered on August 20, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2924)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Public Resources

Gwangju District Court Decision 96No497 delivered on August 23, 1996

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes does not take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding victims, and "the time when a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of the accident before performing his duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding victims although the driver knew of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, and brings about a situation that cannot be determined as the person who suffered the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do1415, Aug. 20, 196; 96Do2

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court found the victims of the instant accident on September 12, 195, and found the victims of the instant accident to have known the victims of the instant accident, and found the victims of the instant accident to have known the victims of the instant accident, and found the victims of the instant accident to have known the victims of the instant accident at the 1stm of the accident, and that the victims of the instant accident had no contact with the victims of the instant accident at the 1stm of the accident at the 1stm of the accident at the 27th anniversary of the first accident, and found the victims of the instant accident to have known the victims of the instant accident at the 1stm of the accident at the 1stm of the accident, and found the victims of the instant accident to have no contact with the victims of the instant accident at the 1stm of the instant 3m of the accident at the 1stm of the accident, and found that the Defendant had no contact with the victims of the instant accident at the 2nd of the accident.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

As duly determined by the court below, the defendant found that the driver was negligent in the course of driving a car and driving the car, and immediately after the accident occurred, the driver was approaching the road side of the road and approach the vehicle to the site, and the two victims got out of the site. Even if the victims were sound as the defendant's family change, the victims of the accident and the time and place of the accident are considered to be unable to take relief measures due to the power of the victims of the accident, the vehicle or the personal traffic at the heart, and the victim did not take necessary measures for the above accident (the defendant can know the fact that the victims of the public health clinic for five years work experience) and did not take necessary measures for the above accident, and if it was impossible to move the vehicle to the hospital after leaving the direction of the victims of the above accident, it was impossible to take necessary measures for the police station or the Eup to immediately contact with the victims of the vehicle, etc., and it was impossible to take necessary measures for the police station or the Eup to immediately contact the victims of the above accident.

After the defendant escaped from the scene of the accident, the defendant went to the scene of the accident and asked the victim to contact with the external operator of the motor vehicle, who was known to him, and returned to the scene of the accident after about 20 minutes of the accident. However, the victims did not find the victims since the victims had been rescued. After the accident occurred about 40 minutes, the victims did not contact the police officer belonging to the police officer of the Gosong-Eup, who was known to him, and reported the fact of the accident to the above police box. The circumstances of the court below's recognition that the victims knew of the victims as the hospital where the victims were sent back, and that the victims knew of the fact that they were the victims of the accident. The circumstances of the defendant's act of violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes are merely the conditions after the completion of the crime committed by the victim, and it cannot be said that the defendant had no criminal intent to escape.

Therefore, the court below's decision that it is difficult to see that the defendant had a criminal intent to commit the escape on the grounds as seen above does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the escape vehicle, nor in the violation of the rules of evidence. The ground for appeal pointing this out has merit

4. Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part of innocence on the crime of violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall not be reversed. Since the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Traffic Accidents which the court below found guilty is included in the crime stipulated in Article 5-3 (1)

Therefore, all of the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)