[1] Purport of Article 54 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act / Details and degree of measures to be taken by a driver in the event of a traffic accident

[2] In a case where Defendant, a driver of a motor vehicle, was prosecuted for violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter "accident") on the ground that: (a) the driver of a damaged motor vehicle, while driving along a three-lane road along the two-lane road; and (b) the driver of a motor vehicle, in the course of changing the two-lane vehicle into the two-lane road, the driver failed to take necessary measures after destroying the damaged motor vehicle after the left side of the damaged motor vehicle driven by Party A with the wheels part of the front right side of the vehicle; and (c) he escaped without taking necessary measures after destroying the damaged motor vehicle; and (d) the case holding that the judgment below acquitted Defendant of the charges on the ground that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles on the grounds that, in full view of all the circumstances such as the degree of shock of the accident, immediately after the accident occurred by the driver of the damaged motor vehicle, and the location where the damaged motor vehicle stopped the motor vehicle, even if the driver did not actually drive

[1] Article 54 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 54 (1) 1 of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018); Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4452 Decided October 22, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2926) Supreme Court Decision 2009Do787 Decided May 14, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 947) Supreme Court Decision 2019Do10878 Decided October 31, 2019

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorney exclusive charge and one other

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2018No430 decided February 14, 2019

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gangnam Branch Branch Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the prosecutor's grounds of appeal

A. The purpose of Article 54(1)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 are to be taken according to specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and measures to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4452, Oct. 22, 2002, etc.).

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the following circumstances are revealed.

1) On May 13, 2018, the Defendant: (a) driven a dump truck (vehicle number 1 omitted) 25t dump truck on May 13, 2018, and changed the lane to two-lanes while driving a three-lane road in front of ○○ apartment, ○ apartment, along the three-lanes from the right edge to the cump hot spring along one-lane.

2) In the process of changing the vehicle line as above, the Defendant: (a) dump truck driven Nonindicted Party 1 (vehicle No. 2 omitted) driven by the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (hereinafter “instant accident”) with the front right wheels part of the said dump truck at the time, followed the left side of the dump truck (hereinafter “instant accident”).

3) As a result of the instant accident, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, the victim Nonindicted 1, who was the victim Nonindicted 1, was injured by plucking, plucking, and salving the body both sides, etc., due to the instant accident, and the victim Nonindicted 2, who was his seated Nonindicted 1 and his seat, suffered injuries, such as chills and tensions, which need to be treated for two weeks, and the said car, which was pushed off during several seconds, was destroyed to the extent that the repair cost was 3,816,439 won, such as the pents.

4) The victim Nonindicted Party 1 stopped a car between the three-lane and the side immediately after the instant accident. The Defendant, while recognizing the instant accident, was driving without stopping, and escaped.

C. In full view of all the circumstances, such as the degree of shock of the above accident, the situation immediately after the driver of the damaged vehicle's accident, and the location where the damaged vehicle stops, even though the driver did not actually drive the Defendant's vehicle, or there was no specific danger in traffic in the course of the drilling, it is deemed that the accident was caused, and the Defendant was deemed to have necessary to take measures to ensure smooth traffic by preventing and removing such danger and obstacle.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise that the Defendant did not have a duty to prevent and eliminate traffic hazards and obstacles, and reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (i.e., measures not taken after accidents) and acquitted the Defendant on the grounds of the judgment. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (i.e., measures not taken after accidents), thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the victims of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among the facts charged in the instant case, on the ground that they suffered injury due to the instant accident.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

3. Scope of reversal

Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed measures after accidents) should be reversed. Since the remaining part of the judgment of the court below convicts the defendant and the ordinary concurrence, the judgment of the court below

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Seon-soo (Presiding Justice)