The purport of Article 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act and the details and degree of measures to be taken by a driver who has caused a traffic accident / Where a driver who has caused a traffic accident drives a vehicle immediately after the accident without informing his/her personal information or contact information about his/her vehicle and deviates from the site (negative)

Articles 54(1) and 148 of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 14356, Dec. 2, 2016)

Supreme Court Decision 93Do2346 Decided November 26, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 227) Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11057 Decided February 25, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1585 Decided February 27, 2014

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 2017No1526 decided September 7, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the part concerning the violation of the Road Traffic Act (if the violation occurred after the accident) is as follows.

피고인은 2016. 12. 17. 16:51경 (차량번호 1 생략) 리베로 화물자동차(이하 ‘가해차량’이라 한다)를 운전하여 대전 ○구 △△△로□□번길에 있는 ◇◇아파트 ☆동 옆 도로를 상가 입구 쪽에서 관리사무소 쪽으로 우회전하여 진행하다가 후진을 하게 되었다. 피고인은 후방주시의무를 게을리한 채 그대로 후진하여 때마침 피고인의 진행 방향 뒤쪽에서 피고인의 화물차를 따라 진행 중이던 피해자가 운전하는 (차량번호 2 생략) 폭스바겐 승용차(이하 ‘피해차량’이라 한다)의 왼쪽 앞펜더 부분을 가해차량 뒤쪽 범퍼 부분으로 들이받았다.

The Defendant, by such occupational negligence, destroyed the damaged vehicle to have an amount equivalent to KRW 4,621,210 of the repair cost, and left away without immediately stopping and taking necessary measures.

B. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The reasons are as follows.

Although the estimated repair cost of the damaged vehicle was a large amount of damage, the strike caused by the collision was not scattered on the road, and the victim suffered relatively minor injury. The victim only contacted the insurance company and reported to the police, but did not attack the defendant. The place of the traffic accident is a road in an apartment complex, where the vehicle traffic is not frequent, and the driver's view is well secured, and the risk of the second accident was extremely low. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that there is a need to take measures to ensure smooth traffic by removing traffic risks and obstacles caused by the traffic accident in the instant case.

2. Supreme Court Decision

A. Article 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 14356, Dec. 2, 2016; hereinafter “former Road Traffic Act”) aims to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles on roads. A driver who causes a traffic accident shall take measures to the extent normally required in light of sound form, depending on specific circumstances, such as the details of the accident and the degree of damage. In a case where a driver who causes a traffic accident immediately drives a vehicle after an accident without notifying his/her personal information or contact details, leaving the vehicle on the spot without notifying the driver of the accident, it is difficult to deem the driver to take necessary measures in that the driver, as well as the driving of the vehicle himself/herself, may escape from the vehicle, or may cause other traffic hazards and obstacles to the vehicle by driving by a victim anticipated to stop or drive the vehicle. The same applies even if a vehicle damaged by an accident was not scattered on the road, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do16365, Apr. 26, 2065).

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following circumstances are revealed.

The Defendant caused a traffic accident by negligence in driving, which was punished for driving without a drinking or without a license, and the repair cost was destroyed to the extent that the damaged vehicle was 4,621,210 won, and the victim was hospitalized for one week by suffering from the injury of climatic base, etc. The Defendant was hospitalized for the first week after the accident. The Defendant was hospitalized for the first week by driving the vehicle immediately after the accident without taking any measures following the following. According to the victim’s police statement, according to the victim’s face, the Defendant appeared to drink at the scene of the vehicle. According to the victim’s statement, even according to the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant was punished for driving without a drinking or without a license, and even according to the Defendant’s statement, it was apprehended that the Defendant would be disqualified from driving without a license during the suspension period. The victim was unable to drive the damaged vehicle due to the damage of the driver’s seat until the Defendant escaped, and the number of the vehicle was not confirmed.

C. Examining these circumstances in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, the following determination is possible.

The Defendant, even after causing a traffic accident, was driving a melting vehicle without taking any measures immediately after the accident, and was off the scene. Although the victim did not scam the Defendant, it is difficult to avoid the possibility that the Defendant attempted to scam the Defendant in light of the content of the accident, degree of damage, and the offender’s behavior, etc. In order to avoid the police officer, etc., the Defendant was able to not only drive the scam by the Defendant, but also stop or drive the scam by the victim’s scam, which might cause another traffic danger and hindrance to other traffic. The circumstances such as the fact that the scam was not scattered on the road, the victim did not scam on the road, and the location where the accident occurred was a apartment complex, and the scam was well secured, cannot affect the aforementioned judgment. The Defendant who caused a traffic accident, without taking any necessary measures to escape pursuant to Article 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act.

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not taking measures after accident) as it is. The court below erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a crime

3. Conclusion

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 court below found guilty and the ordinary concurrent crimes, the judgment below should be reversed in its entirety.

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.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)