(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Egressing Vehicles)

B. Violation of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Dong-su et al., a legal entity without law

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 200477 Delivered on April 7, 2004

April 24, 2005

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found the Defendant on June 6, 2003.

19. 07 : Around 30, a driver of a small-scale car with a three-day driver's license and proceeds in two-lanes in front of the king 4,000-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul. The left side is changed to one-lane, and the two-lanes are changed to one-lane in the same direction. The judgment of the court of first instance affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of each of the charges of this case that the part in front of the king 1 driver's license driving in front of the above small-scale driver's license with the wheels in front of the left side of the above small-scale driver's license and caused the victim to suffer injury, such as light salt, etc. requiring medical treatment for about three weeks, while at the same time, the king 4,000-day driver's license for repair, such as exchange of the front half of the vehicle in front of the above a half-time driver's license, and did not immediately stop and take necessary measures, such as rescue.

2. However, in light of the legislative purport and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Vehicles under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, if it is not acknowledged that there was a need to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as providing the victim with relief, etc., by comprehensively taking into account the details and details of the accident, the victim’s age and part and degree of injury, and circumstances after the accident, etc., the accident driver does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes even if the accident driver actually leaves the accident place without taking such measures as aiding the victim. The purpose of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent traffic danger and obstacle that occur on the road and ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic, not to recover the damage of the victim. In this case, the measures to be taken by the driver should be taken according to the specific situation, such as the content and degree of damage, and the degree of measures normally required in light of sound form (see, Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2422.

3. In light of the record, the victim immediately driven the accident of this case, and it is difficult for the victim to write off the vehicle of this case from the vehicle of this case to the defendant, and the defendant also confirmed the collision level of the vehicle of this case. However, the victim's appeal for special pain or credit was governance, and the degree of the loss of the damaged vehicle of this case is small enough to see that the damaged vehicle of this case is less than 6 freeboard distance than 6 freeboard, and it is difficult for the victim to take any other measures such as the victim's 6th day after the accident of this case. In light of the fact that the victim's 6th day after the accident of this case was investigated by the police, the victim did not have any statement about the part of the accident of this case, such as the victim's 6th day after the accident of this case. The victim's 6th day after 5th day after the accident of this case, the victim's diagnosis of the accident of this case and the 3rd day after the accident of this case cannot be seen by the victim's report of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty in all of the charges of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence, or by misunderstanding the legal principles on Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act, and it is clear that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal

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 Kim Yong-dam, Justice Kim Yong-dam

Justices Kim Jong-dam

Justices Bae Ki-won

Justices Lee Kang-soo