도주운전죄의 몇 가지 문제점

Abstract

Article 5 Section 3 of the Additional Punishment Law on Specific Crimes in Traffic Laws was enacted by terms of extending circumstances not to fulfill the duty of the measure, even though it is regulated in Korean Traffic Laws to remove injuries and damages of a person in case of emergency of the accident.Therefore, it is rational to interpret it as follows;First, the definition of the traffic should be interpreted as an act resulting from or closely involved in driving, even if it does not have meanings but depend on interpretation. Second, the duty of the measure (Article 54 Section1) in Korean Traffic Laws was reformed that it enables to adopt to any other places aside from a road and hit and run seems to applythe sites. However,in order to establish the hit and run crime, it is appropriate with respect to the benefit and protection and purpose, and requisite of the law that it should interpret not to apply to other places besides the road. Third, the interpretation of “any other measures needed including the duty of the rescue” should correspond with the benefit and protection of the law because its provision is ambiguous and abstract. Also, it is natural that there is no duty of the notice on the reporter’s identity because the main benefit and protection is “safety of victims’ life and body, resulted in the accident and safety of traffic additionally.”Therefore, the amendment of the Additional Punishment Law on Specific Crimes should be stipulated that it requires “a series of acts which make it difficult to find and rescue a victim because a driver involved in the accident moves the victim from the site of the accident to other places or conceals him or her”.