In a case where the driver of an accident provided the victim with data that enables him/her to identify while leaving the scene of the accident without taking relief measures despite the awareness of the fact that the victim was killed, whether it constitutes "the case where he/she attempted" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides the driver of an accident with the data by which his identity can be confirmed, such as aiding the victim before he performs the duty provided for in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, in spite of the driver's awareness of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, it refers to a situation in which it could not be confirmed who caused the accident because the driver of the accident escaped from the accident site before he performs the duty provided for in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although the driver knew of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, if the driver of the accident escaped from the accident site prior to performing the duty provided for in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, even if the driver of the accident provided the victim with the data by which his identity can be confirmed before leaving the accident site, it constitutes "the case where the driver still escaped without taking the measure

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

Supreme Court Decision 96Do252 delivered on April 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1481) Supreme Court Decision 96Do1415 delivered on August 20, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2924) Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2563 Delivered on January 5, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 473)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2001No458 delivered on September 17, 2001

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act among the facts charged in the instant case

The Defendant is a person who drives a free car;

On February 3, 200, when driving the above vehicle on February 21:45, 200, and driving from 1, 2205, 1, 2205, e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e..

2. The first instance court and the lower court’s determination

According to evidence, the first instance court found that the defendant did not immediately stop the defendant and take necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the defendant (the first instance court found the defendant not to take measures under Article 51 (1) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the defendant did not take measures under Article 51 (1) of the Road Traffic Act), and that the defendant issued the victim's resident registration certificate to the victim at the victim's request after the occurrence of the above traffic accident and added his office telephone number at the victim's request, but the defendant was waiting to leave the scene without waiting about about 30 minutes after the occurrence of the accident. The court below rejected the judgment of the first instance court that found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant did not have any criminal intent to escape because he did not properly perform his duties under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and aiding the victim at the scene of the accident, although the defendant did not properly perform his personal information and telephone contact points at the scene of the accident, and left the scene at the scene, and that the defendant did not have any other criminal intent to escape.

3. Judgment of party members

Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides the driver of an accident with the data by which his identity can be confirmed prior to the occurrence of the accident, such as aiding the victim, even though the driver of the accident knew that the victim was killed or injured, it brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2563, Jan. 5, 2001). Thus, if the driver of the accident escaped from the accident site prior to the performance of the duty provided for in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim despite the driver's knowledge of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, if the driver of the accident provided the victim with the data by which his identity can be confirmed prior to leaving the accident site, it constitutes a case in which the driver still does not take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do2565, Apr. 25, 1996).

In this case, if it is recognized that the victim actually suffered injury as stated in the facts charged, and that the defendant left the accident site without taking appropriate relief measures despite recognizing the necessity of relief measures against the victim, even if the defendant had left the accident site before leaving the accident site, it shall be deemed that the defendant had the criminal intent of escape under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the above facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the criminal intent of escape, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the criminal intent of escape under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes cannot be reversed, and the violation of the Road Traffic Act which the court below found guilty is or is included in the above crime and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is included in the above crime, and the violation of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)