2012No1681 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicles), roads

Violation of Traffic Law (Measures Not to be Taken after Accidents)

A

Prosecutor

Maximum mileages (prosecutions) and Materns (Trial)

Attorney B

Changwon District Court Decision 201Da4635 Decided August 17, 2012

November 1, 2012

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won. If the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

In light of the facts charged in this case, the court below found all of the charges in this case guilty on the charges of this case, although it was found guilty on the ground that the defendant and the victim were guilty on the charges of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which includes the charges of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and the charges of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, are included in the charges of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Motor Vehicles, and the charges of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles of the judgment or by misapprehending the legal principles on the following facts.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

Around 23:50 on October 6, 201, the Defendant driven the said car, driving the said car, and driving it along the first line from the direction of the Dong-dong Office, where the two-lane road is located in the direction of the road in front of the starting point of the Kimhae-si. Since at night and there are a large number of vehicles waiting nearby the three-distance intersection where the signal lights are installed, the Defendant, who is engaged in driving the vehicle, has a duty of care to accurately operate the steering direction and brake system of the vehicle and prevent the accident from spreading. Nevertheless, the Defendant, while neglecting this, was negligent in driving the said vehicle, and the Defendant took the back part of the said vehicle, resulting in damage to the victim D(E7 years old and 48 years old) who was in the front of the said vehicle, and did not immediately damage the said part to the victim and did not take necessary measures such as treatment of the said 20-day taxi, and did not take necessary measures, such as treatment of the 40-day cargo.

B. The judgment of the court below

(6) The lower court determined that the instant accident was an accident that caused the injury to the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the damaged taxi at approximately 1m 50cm following the instant accident, which caused the Defendant’s 2-lane traffic accident on the front of the damaged taxi in the air, and that the Defendant did not suffer injury to the passengers on board the damaged taxi for about 2 weeks after taking account of the following facts charged: (i) the instant accident was an accident that caused the injury to the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the traffic accident at the time of the instant accident; and (ii) the victim did not suffer injury to the passenger on board the damaged taxi; (iii) the instant accident did not seem to have been destroyed despite the fact that there was a minor shade on the part of the vehicle following the instant accident, but it was difficult for the victim to find out that the victim was not guilty of the damaged vehicle in front of the instant accident on the date of the instant accident, on which the Defendant and the victim did not take other necessary measures to remove the 0-lane number of the vehicle in front of the instant accident.

3. Judgment of the court below

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

1) In light of the legislative purport of the provision on the aggravated punishment of a fugitive driver as prescribed in Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the protected legal interest thereof, in a case where it is not recognized that there was a need to take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as providing relief to the victim in fact, even if the accident driver left the place where the accident occurred without taking such measures as providing relief to the victim, it does not constitute a crime of violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act. However, whether there was a need to take measures such as providing relief to the victim in fact should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the situation and contents of the accident, the victim’s age and degree of injury, and circumstances after the accident. In order to recognize that there was no need to take emergency relief measures such as providing relief to the person who caused the accident, it should be determined that there was no need to declare that relief measures are unnecessary on the part of the victim immediately after the accident, or that there was no need to take other emergency measures after the accident.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: ① the Defendant was under a sudden stop while driving the 1st century, and driven the 1st century; ② the Defendant caused damage to the front part of the damaged taxi due to the shock, which caused damage in an amount equivalent to 947,100 won in repair cost, and the victim’s timber and body scambling the front part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 1st part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 1st part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd part.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, considering the course and contents of the instant traffic accident, the circumstances after the accident, the victim’s age (the age of 48), and the part, degree, and treatment of the injury, which can be known by the above recognition, even though the victim complained against the Defendant immediately after the instant traffic accident, or did not have any external standing, it cannot be readily concluded that there was no need to take necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim because the Defendant could not recognize the victim’s injury at the time of the instant traffic accident. Under such circumstances, if the Defendant escaped from the scene of the accident without disclosing his identity, the Defendant’s act should be deemed as constituting the element of the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which made a different judgment is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

B. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (the measures not to be taken after accidents)

1) The purport 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 flow of traffic, not to recover victims’ damage. In such cases, measures to be taken by drivers should be taken appropriately according to specific circumstances, such as the content of accidents and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures should be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do787, May 14, 2009).

2) Examining the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the damaged vehicle was damaged due to the instant traffic accident, and the victim tried to verify the identity of the Defendant, but the Defendant, despite having attempted to identify the Defendant, was parked on the road on which the passage of the vehicle is frequent due to disregarding it, and before confirming the site of the accident, the damaged vehicle was stopped as it was. If this situation occurs, the damaged vehicle stopped on the road, and may cause another traffic danger and obstacle. Thus, even if the damaged vehicle only suffered minor physical damage, and even if by-products or waves did not fall on the road due to the instant traffic accident, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have taken necessary measures at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident as prescribed in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which made a different judgment is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is justified, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is decided again as follows.

Criminal facts

- As described in paragraph (1) of this Article.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the original judgment;

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. Each statement made by the police in relation to D and F;

1. Each description of the statements related to the traffic accidents in D or F;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, a report on actual condition survey, an accident-related photograph, a medical certificate, and images 1. The investigation report ( acceptance of a written estimate), an investigation report (verification of the shock part of a vehicle), and descriptions and images thereof;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 5-3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the point of escape after occupational injury), Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of absence after accident)

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is heavier than that of punishment)

3. Selection of punishment;

Selection of Fines

4. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

5. Order of provisional payment;

The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant does not take any measures such as aiding and abetting the victim while causing the instant traffic accident, and the nature of the crime is not good, and that the denial of the instant crime up to the trial, and the degree of the victim's injury due to the instant traffic accident is not relatively serious (the victim suffers injury, such as catitis that requires two weeks medical treatment), the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the vehicle of the defendant is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, the vehicle of the defendant is covered by the vehicle insurance, and the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, such as traffic-related crimes, other favorable circumstances such as the defendant's character, character and environment, the background and result of the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and all the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, shall be determined as ordered.

The presiding judge or higher judge;

Judges Doese

Judges Kim Gin-young