도로교통법 제54조 제1항 사고발생시 조치의무의 문제점
The problem of the duty to take action in the case of accident in accordance with Para. 1 of Art. 54 of the road Traffic Act
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Because the Road Traffic Act was revised, it could be applied to other places including the road. But, though the Road Traffic Act aimed to prevent all risks and obstacles for gaining safe and smooth traffic condition, it was not suitable to expend this act to other places beyond the road. Secondly, same statutory punishment was regulated to all causes of traffic accidents no matter what it was caused on purpose or by mistake. However, when the accident was caused on purpose and there’s no action for it, it is more likely to take criticism more than when the accident was caused by mistake. So, it is not suitable to apply same statutory punishment to them. Therefore, because the responsibilities are different from causes of the accident, it is advisable to revise statutory punishments about the duty to take action in accordance with the amount of its responsibility. That is, whether the accident was caused on purpose or by mistake should decide statutory punishment of it Thirdly, the duty to take action was imposed in the case of accidents no matter what it is personal accident or physical accident and same statutory punishment was regulated to the violation of it. If the person who caused personal accident does not take actions for the aid though he/she was in the place where the accident happens, and if the person who caused physical accident does not take actions for the aid and cause traffic congestion, there are different responsibilities of each case. Therefore, it is advisable to regulate statutory punishments in accordance with the amount of its responsibility. Fourthly, because the duty to take action in the case of the accident was regulated abstractly, it can be opposed to the principle of legality. So, it should be interpreted for benefit and protection of the law. When the car accident happens, it is required to delete the danger in the traffic and prevent the third car accident for protecting the life and the body of victims of the accident. Therefore, it is seemed the most important benefit of the law in Para. 1 of Art. 54 of the road Traffic Act is for protecting the life and the body of victims of the accident and the safety of the traffic is secondary benefit of the law
Abstract
Because the Road Traffic Act was revised, it could be applied to other places including the road. But, though the Road Traffic Act aimed to prevent all risks and obstacles for gaining safe and smooth traffic condition, it was not suitable to expend this act to other places beyond the road. Secondly, same statutory punishment was regulated to all causes of traffic accidents no matter what it was caused on purpose or by mistake. However, when the accident was caused on purpose and there’s no action for it, it is more likely to take criticism more than when the accident was caused by mistake. So, it is not suitable to apply same statutory punishment to them. Therefore, because the responsibilities are different from causes of the accident, it is advisable to revise statutory punishments about the duty to take action in accordance with the amount of its responsibility. That is, whether the accident was caused on purpose or by mistake should decide statutory punishment of it Thirdly, the duty to take action was imposed in the case of accidents no matter what it is personal accident or physical accident and same statutory punishment was regulated to the violation of it. If the person who caused personal accident does not take actions for the aid though he/she was in the place where the accident happens, and if the person who caused physical accident does not take actions for the aid and cause traffic congestion, there are different responsibilities of each case. Therefore, it is advisable to regulate statutory punishments in accordance with the amount of its responsibility. Fourthly, because the duty to take action in the case of the accident was regulated abstractly, it can be opposed to the principle of legality. So, it should be interpreted for benefit and protection of the law. When the car accident happens, it is required to delete the danger in the traffic and prevent the third car accident for protecting the life and the body of victims of the accident. Therefore, it is seemed the most important benefit of the law in Para. 1 of Art. 54 of the road Traffic Act is for protecting the life and the body of victims of the accident and the safety of the traffic is secondary benefit of the law
참고문헌 (24)
- 김형준, "음주운전과 형사책임" (2007), 진원사
- 박상기, "형법총론(제8판)" (2009), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법총론" (2011), 홍문사
- 손기식, "교통형법" (2000), 한국사법행정학회
- 신동운, "형법총론 제4판" (2009), 법문사
- 오영근, "형법총론" (2006), 박영사
- 이재상, "형법총론" (2011), 박영사
- 임웅, "형법총론" (2012), 법문사
- 정영일, "개정판 형법총론" (2007), 박영사
- 조준현, "형법총론" (2000), 법원사
- 진계호, "형법총론" (2007), 대왕사
- 김동건, "뺑소니 교통사고에 대한 소고, In 법학논집; 취봉 김용철선생 고희기념논문집" (1993), 박영사
- 김태수, "도로교통법상 무과실 운전자에게 부여된 교통사고발생시 조치의무와 형사처벌의 정당성", 안암법학, (41), pp.43~66 (2013), 안암법학회
- 김형준, "도로교통법상 교통사고시 조치의무위반죄", 법조, 52(3) (2003)
- 김형천, "경미한 교통사고에 있어서 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제5조의3제1항의 적용 제한과 도로교통법 제106조, In 형사재판의제문제(제4권)" (2003), 박영사
- 문채규, "교통사고 관련 형사법규들의 체계적 해석 - 도로교통법 제54조 제1항, 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제5조의3 제1항 및 교통사고처리특례법 제3조 제2항의 ‘필요한 조치’ 중 ‘신원확인조치’의 포함 여부를 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 33, pp.149~180 (2011), 부설법학연구소
- 박동률, "교통사고처리 특례법상의 ‘교통’의 의미와 그 범위- 도로교통법상의 ‘운전’과 자동차손해배상 보장법상의 ‘운행’과의 상호관계를 중심으로 -", 법학논고, (34), pp.155~184 (2010), 법학연구원
- 정광정, "도로교통법에 나타난 교통사고 발생시 조치의무에 관한 고찰 : 도로교통법 제50조 제1항을 중심으로", 청대학술논집, 6 (2005), 청주대학교학술연구소
- 정초영, "도로교통법상 도로의 개념에 관한 연구, 구내도로를 중심으로", 교통안전연구논집, (28) (2009), 도로교통안전관리공단 교통과학연구원
- 조상제, "도주운전자의 가중처벌 소정의 도주의 의미해석과 그 한계, In 형사판례연구 5" (1997), 박영사
- 조준현, "특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제5조의 3 도주차량운전자의 가중처벌조항의 해석, In 형사판례연구 7" (1999), 형사판례연구회
- 한상훈, "특가법 제5조의3(도주운전죄)과 원인에 있어서 자유로운 행위", 형사정책연구, 11(3) (2000), 한국형사정책연구원
- 황상현, "특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제5조의3 제1항에 관련된 문제, In 형사판례연구 3" (1995), 박영사
- 황일호, "특가법상 도주죄에 있어서의 구호의무 -신원고지의무를 중심으로-", 중앙법학, 11(3), pp.179~212 (2009), 중앙법학회