The case holding that even if the perpetrator clearly expresses his status as witness at the site, the perpetrator constitutes "doing" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that in case where the defendant denied the crime committed on his own vehicle immediately after the shocking of the victim, while neglecting the victim who was used on the road under the influence of alcohol, and the third party at this point did not know of the accident, and the victim was sent back by the 119 rescue unit by reporting the accident in his mobile phone, and the defendant did not actively engage in the act for the rescue of the victim, and the police officer sent out without guiding the victim to the hospital with the victim who was sent back to the hospital, voluntarily carried out the crime, and returned home as witness, the defendant cannot be deemed to have taken such measures as aiding the victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the defendant did not have any influence on the establishment of the above crime on the ground that he stated the victim as witness of the accident in the police station as witness of the accident and stated his status as witness of the accident, regardless of the confirmation of the victim of the accident.

Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057, Dec. 29, 1995)

Supreme Court Decision 96Do252 delivered on April 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1481) Supreme Court Decision 96Do1415 delivered on August 20, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2924)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Shin Sung-ap et al.

Jeju District Court Decision 95No388 delivered on July 18, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in comparison with the records, the court below's decision that recognized the fact that the defendant was making a left-hand turn while driving a car as stated in the judgment of the court below and putting the victim on the road at the front part of the above car, and eventually causing death is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of facts, or misunderstanding of legal principles, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal. Ultimately, it is not erroneous for the court below's determination of the evidence and the recognition of facts, which are the whole matters of the judgment of the court below, and it cannot be accepted.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts of the first instance court and the evidence revealed by the court below that the defendant denied the crime committed on his own vehicle immediately after the shocking of the victim and neglected the victim who was used on the road due to alcohol, and that the accident should be reported if he left the scene where the victim was sent back by the 119 rescue unit by reporting his cell phone accident with his cell phone, and that the defendant did not actively engage in the act for the rescue of the victim, and that the defendant was sent back to the police officer without the direction of the victim who was sent to the hospital with the victim who was sent back to the hospital, and returned home after he concealed the crime, and stated him as a witness. The defendant cannot be deemed to have taken measures such as aiding the victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). Since the defendant stated his status as a witness of the accident in the police station of this case and stated his status as a witness of this case regardless of the confirmation of the victim.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of facts, or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)