특가법상 도주죄에 있어서의 구호의무 -신원고지의무를 중심으로-

Abstract

The crime of hit and run driving is a crime which is stipulated under heavy punishment against the hit and run driver in traffic accident in view of difficulty of investigation and high level of criticism on it. It is quite clear that pertinent driver is under obligation to render assistance to the victim in the Crime of Fleeing without Rendering Assistance on the The Road Traffic Act which is element of constituting crime of hit and run driving under The Extraordinary Criminal Act for Heavy Punishment on Some Crimes. However regarding other required actions it is stipulating comprehensively thus specific fact is entrusted to theory of interpretation. In the crime of hit and run driving under the Extraordinary Criminal Act for Heavy Punishment on Some Crimes it is stipulated as 'when the pertinent driver fled without performing duty of rendering assistance provided in Clause 1, Art. 54 of the Road Traffic Act.' Thus over the concept of fleeing there is a room of controversy of interpretation on whether or not it is sufficient when simply duty for stopping the car and rendering assistance was carried out or it is necessary to carry out duty of identification by the pertinent driver as decided in the precedent of the Supreme Court. It seemed that Supreme Court's decision not recognizing the crime of hit and run driving under the Extraordinary Criminal Act for Heavy Punishment on Some Crimes in case of light traffic accidents in no need of assistance by relenting strict law application in the earlier stage is reasonable. However Supreme Court's including duty of identification in the contents of rendering assistance by the driver involved in the accident has not legal basis and it is contrary to interest protected by law and purpose enactment of Extraordinary Crime Act for Heavy Punishment on Some Crimes and also against principle in the Constitutional Law prohibiting of making disadvantageous statement against oneself and also against guaranteeing right to remain silent under Criminal Proceedings Act. Accordingly it is necessary to change Supreme Court's precedent of punishing hit and run driver who failed to carry out duty of identification under the Extraordinary Criminal Act for Heavy Punishment on Some Crimes in a manner of focusing more on protecting life and body of the victim of traffic accident which is purpose aimed by the law on crime of hit and run driving under the Extraordinary Act on Heavy Punishment on Some Crimes as early as possible.The crime of hit and run driving is a crime which is stipulated under heavy punishment against the hit and run driver in traffic accident in view of difficulty of investigation and high level of criticism on it. It is quite clear that pertinent driver is under obligation to render assistance to the victim in the Crime of Fleeing without Rendering Assistance on the The Road Traffic Act which is element of constituting crime of hit and run driving under The Extraordinary Criminal Act for Heavy Punishment on Some Crimes. However regarding other required actions it is stipulating comprehensively thus specific fact is entrusted to theory of interpretation. In the crime of hit and run driving under the Extraordinary Criminal Act for Heavy Punishment on Some Crimes it is stipulated as 'when the pertinent driver fled without performing duty of rendering assistance provided in Clause 1, Art. 54 of the Road Traffic Act.' Thus over the concept of fleeing there is a room of controversy of interpretation on whether or not it is sufficient when simply duty for stopping the car and rendering assistance was carried out or it is necessary to carry out duty of identification by the pertinent driver as decided in the precedent of the Supreme Court. It seemed that Supreme Court's decision not recognizing the crime of hit and run driving under the Extraordinary Criminal Act for Heavy Punishment on Some Crimes in case of light traffic accidents in no need of assistance by relenting strict law application in the earlier stage is reasonable. However Supreme Court's including duty of identification in the contents of rendering assistance by the driver involved in the accident has not legal basis and it is contrary to interest protected by law and purpose enactment of Extraordinary Crime Act for Heavy Punishment on Some Crimes and also against principle in the Constitutional Law prohibiting of making disadvantageous statement against oneself and also against guaranteeing right to remain silent under Criminal Proceedings Act. Accordingly it is necessary to change Supreme Court's precedent of punishing hit and run driver who failed to carry out duty of identification under the Extraordinary Criminal Act for Heavy Punishment on Some Crimes in a manner of focusing more on protecting life and body of the victim of traffic accident which is purpose aimed by the law on crime of hit and run driving under the Extraordinary Act on Heavy Punishment on Some Crimes as early as possible.