특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not recognize the defendant's intention to flee, as the victim did not know the fact that it was necessary to take relief measures at the time of the instant case.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Although the driver of the relevant legal doctrine recognizes the fact that a person who suffered death or injury due to an accident, if he/she immediately stops the scene of the accident prior to the implementation of necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the person who caused the accident, and brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed, this constitutes "when he/she escaped without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as immediately stopping the accident and providing assistance to the injury," and in such a case, the degree of awareness about the fact that the person who caused the accident sustained is not definitely definite but do not need to be confirmed (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2654, Sept. 30, 2005). In addition, in light of the legislative purport and protection of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, in light of the legal interests and interests of the victim, the situation and degree of the accident and the situation of the driver of the accident and the person who actually sustained the accident.
If it is not recognized, the driver of the accident shall not take measures, such as aiding the victim, but leave the place of the accident.
Even if there is no violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the above Act, but the necessity of the measure at the time of the occurrence of the accident is the injury of the victim, the details and degree of the accident, the circumstances after the accident, and treatment.