2. The phrase “the case where a driver of an accident runs away without taking such measures as provided in Article 50(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” as provided in Article 5-3(1) of the same Act refers to the case where the driver of an accident does not take the “measures as provided in Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act” despite the victim’s awareness of the fact that he was killed and injured, and brings about a situation where it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident by leaving the accident site. As such, the phrase “measures as provided in Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act” includes the case where the driver of the accident carries out relief measures such as sending the victim to the hospital and allowing him to receive medical treatment. Even if the driver of the accident took such relief measures as sending the victim to the hospital, if the victim, etc. left the hospital without disclosing his identity to the victim, etc., it cannot be deemed that all of the “measures as provided in Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5748 Decided March 25, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8264 Decided January 26, 2006). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant: (a) while driving a taxi at around 22:40 on August 23, 2015; (b) sent the instant traffic accident to a nearby hospital; (c) left the hospital without notifying the victim or the hospital of any personal information; (d) the victim was aware of the number of the taxi and the name of the taxi company that the Defendant driven; but (e) the victim was not aware of the personal information of the Defendant.