A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not leave the scene of the accident with the criminal intent of escape since the Defendant took relief measures after the accident and confirmed the identity of the face printed out.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (7 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that ① in light of the overall circumstances immediately after the accident, there was no criminal intent to escape from the Defendant, and ② the Defendant’s duty to confirm the identity by carrying out the name cards on the traffic accident site appropriately.

1) According to Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, a driver of the pertinent vehicle who commits a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to the transportation of a motor vehicle, motor device, or bicycle as provided for in Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act, runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim.

Here, the "measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act" includes not only the duty to provide relief to the victims enumerated above, but also the duty to immediately stop after the accident, the duty to provide relief to casualties, and the duty to take other necessary measures to ensure safety at the accident site and to take measures and to confirm the identity of the victims (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5748, Mar. 25, 2003, etc.). Meanwhile, there was no need to take measures such as providing relief to the victims, etc.

In order to recognize, it should be objectively and clearly revealed that the victim actively expressed that relief measures are unnecessary on the part of the victim or that other emergency measures are not necessary at the time immediately after the accident, and there was no big inconvenience in the victim's movement immediately after the accident.