A. Defendant 1) In the event of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, annoyed treatment was needed to the extent that it cannot be assessed as an injury under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act. In addition, at the time of a traffic accident, there was no need for Defendant to take measures, such as aiding the victim under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act. Therefore, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not established. (2) The sentencing of the lower court (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles by the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts under Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty provided in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, although he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed or injured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do250, Mar. 12, 2004). Here, the degree of perception of the facts of the victim’s death is sufficient if the victim knew of it without necessarily requiring confirmation, while recognizing that the person who caused the accident was aware of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, and if he/she escaped from the scene of the accident, he/she is not aware of it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do250, Apr. 18, 2011).