In light of the above legal principles, the defendant was found not guilty of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (measures after the accident) and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "violation") among the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the defendant cannot be deemed to have escaped at the site, even though the defendant was found to have committed a false act as if the mother of the defendant was the driver of the accident, or who was aware of a false act as if he was the mother of the defendant was the driver of the accident at the time of the instant accident.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (in the instant charges) among the charges, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (in the case of an accident), on the ground that “the Defendant reported to an insurance company through the mother K through the accident, and there is no record of leaving the scene after the accident, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant escaped at the site without taking necessary measures after the traffic accident.”

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified for the following reasons, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion

subsection (b) of this section.

(1) Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall not take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as providing relief to a victim by a driver of the relevant vehicle who commits a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act by carrying a bicycle or motor motor bicycle.