A. Error 1) The Defendant did not recognize the fact of the instant accident, and did not have any intention to commit a crime of escape. 2) The Defendant cannot be said to have suffered bodily injury under the Criminal Act to the extent that relief measures are needed due to the instant accident.

3) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. B. The court below’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, and eight hours of community service order is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of a fugitive driver as provided by Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as the relevant legal principle 1 related to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the legal interest and protection thereof, in a case where it is not acknowledged that the accident driver required to take measures as provided by Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as the actual rescue of the victim, etc., even if the accident driver left the place of the accident without taking measures such as aiding the victim, the crime of violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act should not be committed. However, whether to take measures such as aiding the victim was necessary should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the situation and contents of the accident, the victim's age and degree, and the circumstances after the accident, etc., but it is recognized that there was no need to take measures such as aiding the victim.

It should be objectively and clearly revealed immediately after the accident that there is no need to take other emergency measures, and only after the accident, there is no big inconvenience for the victim's movement, and the appearance of the victim.