The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the defendant cannot be deemed to have deserted the scene of an accident with the criminal intent of escape before performing his/her duty of aiding the victim, etc.

[1] Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2004No877 Decided January 5, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "when a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under the provisions of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, etc." refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the accident site before performing his/her duty under the provisions of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she knew that the victim was killed or injured, resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5748, Mar. 25, 2003; 2004Do250, Mar. 12, 2004; 204Do250, Mar. 12, 2004; hereinafter referred to as "the Road Traffic Act") does not aim at restoring the victim's safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic dangers and obstacles, and in such cases, measures to be taken by the driver shall be taken shall be considered to the extent of sound 200.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence. Even if the defendant had the co-defendant, who is the passenger of the vehicle in this case, called the driver of the accident scene, make a false report to the police officer, the defendant did not leave the accident scene after the accident occurred until the victim was sent to the hospital by the 119 first-aid vehicle, and the police officer dispatched clearly stated that the vehicle in this case was the victim, and he was accompanied to the police station to undergo an investigation at the scene of the accident at the request of the above police officer after the victim's post dispatch measures were completed, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had escaped with the co-defendant in the accident scene before the defendant performed his duty to rescue the victim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the court below ruled that the defendant's act does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, and that the defendant did not separately dismiss the defendant's order.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above recognition and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to escape under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes or the legal principles as to measures in the event of traffic accidents under Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, as

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

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)