In addition, it is difficult to see that the defendant had the intention of escape because the victim, at the time of the receipt of the insurance accident, reported the victim's contact details to the employee of the insurance company and went away from the rest of the site.

Therefore, the court below assessed the defendant's act of leaving the scene as escape and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, in so determining, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

2. Determination

A. As to the necessity of relief measures, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) is applicable.

In light of the legislative intent of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of fugitive Drivers and the legal interest and protection thereof, if it is not deemed necessary for the accident driver to take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as the actual rescue of the victim, even if the accident driver left the place for the accident, it does not constitute a crime of violating Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act even though the accident driver does not take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim. However, whether it was necessary to take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and contents of the accident, the age and part and degree of the injury of the victim, the circumstances after the accident, etc. However, in order to recognize that there was no need to take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim in light of the fact that Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act grants the person who caused the accident an emergency relief responsibility.

(1) shall be deemed to be an emergency; or