메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
중앙법학회 중앙법학 중앙법학 제15집 제3호
발행연도
2013.3
수록면
201 - 224 (24page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
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.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (24)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-360-002567904