Nevertheless, since the court below convicted all of the charges, it erred by misapprehending the facts concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination of necessity of relief measures should be determined by comprehensively taking account of the victim’s injury level and degree, the contents of the accident and circumstances after the accident, the period and time of the medical treatment, the victim’s age and health condition, etc. However, in the case of major cases, it may be determined that the defendant, in direct dialogue with the victim, gives the victim an opportunity to make a statement of pain, or at least, it is not necessary to take relief measures to find the victim’s condition visually by stopping the defendant, and if not, it shall not be easily determined that there was no need to take relief measures.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2085, May 10, 2007; 2008Do1339, Jul. 10, 2008). First, we examine the defense counsel and the defendant’s assertion that the victim’s injury does not constitute an injury under the Criminal Act.

The following facts or circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below are recognized:

① In light of the damaged condition of the damaged vehicle and the damaged vehicle due to the instant accident, the speed and shock of the said vehicle at the time of the accident, etc., it is difficult to deem that the degree of collision of the instant accident is less light.

② According to the contents of the medical certificate of injury inflicted on the victim, the victim was diagnosed of injury, such as the catum and catum salt requiring treatment for about three weeks, and ③ the victim was first diagnosed.