A. The meaning of "domination" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act

(b) The case holding that "where a police officer was already investigating the scene of an accident and a victim was sent to a hospital with his/her contact address, etc. and leaves the scene" does not fall under the escape of paragraph (1);

A. The escape stipulated in Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means a case where a driver of an accident deviates from the accident site before performing his/her duty provided in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, and brings about an undetermined state as an accident reporter.

(b) The case holding that, at the time of a traffic accident, the police officers were called out and investigated without reporting the accident by the defendant, and the defendant was not taking relief measures against the victim after the occurrence of the accident, but after the occurrence of the accident, the defendant was to install a vehicle that had been driven by the victim and send the vehicle to the hospital, and the name and telephone number of the defendant was recorded properly and left the scene of the accident, such on-site deviation does not constitute escape as referred to in Paragraph (a).

Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc., Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

A

Prosecutor

Gwangju High Court Decision 91No330 delivered on June 14, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts based on the evidence of this case that the police officer was dispatched and investigated at the time of the accident without the report of the defendant's accident, and the defendant did not take relief measures against the victim after the occurrence of the accident, but did not take relief measures against the victim's own after the occurrence of the accident, and that the defendant was equipped with the victim's name and telephone number and sent the victim to the hospital, and left the scene of the accident. The victim was contacted with the defendant's family by the above telephone number, and the victim was treated as medical expenses paid by the insurance company to which the accident occurred. The determination of the above facts by the court below is just and there was no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the course of the evidence preparation.

In addition, the escape stipulated in Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to a case where the driver of the accident deviates from the accident site before the performance of the obligation stipulated in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, and brings about a situation in which it is impossible to be confirmed as the victim of the accident. As determined by the court below, it shall be deemed that a traffic accident is recognized by a police officer who has already been dispatched to the accident site, and relief measures for the victim are terminated due to the daily conduct of the victim, and if the victim escaped from the accident site after stating the name and telephone number of the defendant and personal information such as the victim's name and his/her phone number

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

For this reason, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho