The case holding that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident did not have an intention to escape, in case where the victim was not directly shocked by the vehicle, but only demanded a laundry without talking about the injury at the time of the accident.

The case holding that it is difficult to view that the defendant had an intention to escape, if the victim's standing room was not directly shocked by the defendant's vehicle, but did not go beyond 10 meters, and the victim again demanded 10 meters of 10 meters of laund and laund money as it was again again again, and the victim did not speak that she suffered any bodily injury, and the defendant was at the time of the accident because the accident site was the department store parking lot, and the vehicle behind the defendant continued to remain in the atmosphere of the vehicle of the defendant, and the vehicle of the defendant went back to the office of settlement of the charges, and it was impossible to find that she did not go back to the scene of the accident but did not look back because she did not find it.

Article 5-3 of the Specific Crimes

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 95Da3344 delivered on December 5, 1995

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the injury of the victim of this case is within the scope of use and indivisible by the method of vehicle driving of the defendant. Thus, as a matter of course, the defendant is responsible for the driver of the traffic accident. Since the defendant who caused the accident is obligated to anticipate the victim's injury, even though he does not immediately take relief measures at the scene of the accident, the defendant must confirm the victim's injury and inform the victim of his personal information and contact details. Although he is driving without taking such measures, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes, since it is difficult for the court below to find that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, and it is difficult to find that the victim's upper part of the judgment below did not directly shock the defendant's vehicle, but did not go beyond 10 meters after the victim's accident and laundry because he did not request the victim's accident and laundry because he did not have any other reasons.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Maximum number of persons (Presiding Judge) Lee-ho