(영문) 대법원 2015.3.12. 선고 2014도16656 판결

1. A. Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act provide that a driver, etc. shall promptly take necessary measures, such as removal of obstacles caused by a traffic accident, to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic by preventing and removing traffic hazards and obstacles, and not to recover physical damage to victims. In such cases, measures to be taken on the spot by a driver shall be appropriately taken according to the situation at the scene of the accident, such as the details of the accident, the degree and degree of the damage, and the degree of such measures shall be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of a sound form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4936, Aug. 23, 2013).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the following facts are revealed: (i) although the damaged vehicle was damaged by the accident of this case, where the back part of the damaged vehicle under the stop was driven by the front part of the Defendant vehicle, the repair dog amounting to KRW 675,00,00, due to the accident of this case, the damaged vehicle was not scattered on the road; (ii) the damaged vehicle was not exposed to the driver's degree of damage due to the collision; (iii) the Defendant and D was examined the collision level immediately after the accident of this case; (iv) the vehicle number of the Defendant vehicle was removed from the vehicle on their cell phone; (iii) the Defendant was present at the seat of the Defendant vehicle; (iv) the Defendant was driving the Defendant vehicle on the front part of the vehicle to contact with the insurance company; while D had already taken the number plate of the Defendant vehicle, and thus, D did not attack the Defendant.

C. The above facts, i.e., the instant accident, to the extent that it did not have been scattered at the site, and the Defendant immediately left the scene immediately after the accident and confirmed the damage situation with the victim, and D used the vehicle number of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant also recognized it.

Examining various circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in need of taking measures to ensure smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles caused by the instant accident, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant left the accident site without taking any particular measures, and thus, the Defendant cannot be punished as a violation of Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, which is the facts charged of the instant case.

2. Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

3. 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.