A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant remains at the site immediately after the accident, reported to 119, received emergency medical treatment, sent the victim to the hospital, implemented all relief measures required under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and exceeded the scene of the accident thereafter, and the Defendant does not escape under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) due to the lack of criminal intent to escape.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The phrase "when the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures as provided in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim as provided in Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Determination of Facts" refers to the case where the driver of an accident does not take measures as provided in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, but takes measures as provided in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed by leaving the place of the accident, although the driver recognizes the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, and the measure as provided in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act includes the case's identification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5748, Mar. 25, 2003). As stated in the reasoning of the court below, the defendant was aware of the traffic accident at least since 19th of the vehicle's qui, who was driving at the scene.