2015Gohap385 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Egresing Vehicles), Do

Article 10 (Measures Taken to be Taken after Accidents)

A person shall be appointed.

○○ (Lawsuits) and ○○ (Public Trial)

Law Firm B

Attorney in charge C

7 persons

January 20, 2016

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of violation of the Road Traffic Act (not taking measures after accidents) shall be acquitted.

The prosecution against the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is dismissed.

1. Facts charged;

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a D truck.

On June 3, 2015: Around 08, the Defendant driven the above truck and operated a four-lane from the Olympic Games near Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, to approximately 70km in the city speed, along the three-lane from the gambridge to the gambridge, and changed the lane to the four-lane.

In this case, there was a duty of care to operate direction direction, etc. to those engaged in driving service and give notice of change of course, and to change the car line in the situation of traffic in the front and rear left.

Nevertheless, if the Defendant neglected this and changed the vehicle line to the right side as it is, the Defendant was negligent in changing the vehicle line to the right side, and received the front part of the H car driving by the victim G in the same direction as the other side of the truck driving by the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant, by such occupational negligence, committed an injury to the victim G by causing approximately two weeks to the victim I, who was on the top of the operation of the said vehicle, the victim I, who was on the top of the operation of the said vehicle, for approximately two weeks of injury to the right-hand sloak, such as the sloaked sloak, etc., and at the same time, did not stop the said vehicle to the extent that it damages the amount of KRW 9,682,846 for the repair cost, and did not take necessary measures, such as aiding the victims.

2. Summary of the defendant's lawsuit;

Although the defendant caused a traffic accident due to negligence that failed to fulfill his duty of care in the course of his duties, it is only a continuous driving of a vehicle due to the failure to recognize the occurrence of an accident, and there was no intention to flee without relief or other measures.

3. Determination

가. 무죄 부분 1 ) 이 사건 기록과 변론을 통해 알 수 있는 교통사고 경위와 피해 규모, 피고인의 운전 경력 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 사고 발생 사실을 적어도 미필적으로 인식하고도 아무런 조치 없이 그대로 도주하지 않았는가 하는 강한 의심이 들기는 한다 . 2 ) 그러나 이 법원이 적법하게 채택, 조사한 여러 증거를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 아래와 같은 사실 내지 사정에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 교통사고 발생 사실을 알고도 아무런 조치 없이 도주하였다는 점을 인정하기 다소 부족하다 .가 ) 피고인은 수사기관과 이 법정에서 " 사고 당시 약간의 미동 내지 덜컹거림을 느꼈으나 백미러를 통해 특이사항을 발견할 수 없어 단순한 노면의 굴곡 등을 원인으로 생각하고 계속 트럭을 운전하였다 " 고 대체로 일관되게 진술하고 있다 .

나 ) 피고인과 피해자들의 차량이 충돌할 때 " 쾅 " 하는 충격음이 상당히 크게 발생되는 등 사고로 인해 작지 않은 소음이 생겼다. 그러나 피고인은 트럭의 보조석 창문을 열고 라디오를 들으면서 운전하고 있었던 데다가 소음성 난청으로 청력이 좋지 않으므로, 그와 같은 충격 소리를 듣지 못했을 가능성도 배제할 수 없다 .

C) Examining the result of the analysis of the tachographs installed on the Defendant’s truck, it was possible to verify that the truck at the time of the accident had any scam different from that of the horse, but the degree was not serious. In addition, in light of the size and weight difference of the vehicle between the Defendant and the victims, the degree of damage to the Defendant’s truck, etc., it is deemed that the Defendant scam much smaller than the victims.

라 ) 피해자들은 이 법정에서 " 피고인이 교통사고를 내고 브레이크를 밟는 등 약간 멈칫하다가 그대로 진행한 것 같다 " 는 취지로 진술하기도 했지만, 피해자들 차량 블랙박스 영상 등에 의하면, 피고인은 교통사고 발생 직후 브레이크를 밟거나 속도를 줄이지 않고 그대로 진행하였음을 알 수 있다 .

E) Even if the Defendant subscribed to a nationwide trucking mutual-aid and caused a traffic accident, the Defendant did not have any economic loss incurred therefrom, but did not have any reason or motive to flee without taking measures such as drinking driving or relief after the accident. 3) In a criminal trial, the recognition of conviction must be based on the evidence that the judge would have no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, it is inevitable to determine the Defendant’s interest even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant. In full view of the above facts, it is difficult to view that the facts charged by the prosecutor were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

4) Therefore, among the facts charged in the instant case, the point of violation of the Road Traffic Act (measures not to be taken after the accident) constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence shall be rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the summary of the judgment against the Defendant pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act shall not be publicly announced. Meanwhile, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Epiking Vehicles) and the violation of the Act on the Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter

B. Public prosecution rejection portion

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charges on the violation of the Act on the Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents include the violation of the Act on the Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents that the victims of traffic accidents were injured by the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Epik Vehicles). Even if a public prosecution was instituted due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Epik Vehicles), if a crime of escape is recognized as a result of hearing, it is found guilty and it is not necessary to render a judgment of conviction and render a judgment of rejection of prosecution without the right of prosecution (see, e.g.

On the other hand, the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, where a vehicle which caused a traffic accident under the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is not prosecuted. According to the records, the truck driven by the defendant can be recognized as having been admitted to the National Cargo Financial Cooperative at the time of the

Therefore, the facts charged regarding the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents against the victims fall under a case where the prosecution procedure is invalid in violation of the provisions of the Act, and the prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2

4. The jury verdict;

○ guilty (Recognition of a person guilty of escape): Ten persons.

○ Not guilty and dismissal of prosecution (unauthorized criminal intention of escape): Seven persons (Unauthorized custody)

It is so decided as per Disposition through a participatory trial according to the defendant's wishes.

The presiding judge's seat

Judges Dogman

Judges Song Jae-chul