A. Since the degree of injury of the victims caused by the instant accident is very minor and thus no particular treatment is required, there was no need to take relief measures against the victims.

(Chapter 1). (b)

The defendant entrusted the case to the towing vehicle article on the spot (the grounds of appeal of the defendant's submission), and confirmed the situation of the victims who were taken off immediately after the accident, and the victims at the time "I may know about, but after the lapse of time," and they did not go to the hospital at the time. On the other hand, the defendant thought that the victims confirmed the defendant's telephone number on the defendant's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's accident site because there is no reason for the victim to go back to the scene after drinking away from the nearby convenience store to the scene of the accident.

(Reasons of Appeal for Defense Counsel) Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to commit an escape at the time.

(Chapter 2). (c)

Nevertheless, as the court below pronounced guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination as to the First Claim

A. In light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of a fugitive driver as prescribed in Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the protected legal interest thereof, in a case where it is not recognized that it was necessary to take measures pursuant to the provisions of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as the actual rescue of the victim, etc., even if the accident driver does not take measures such as aiding the victim and leaving the place of accident, the crime of violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is not established. However, whether it was necessary to take measures such as aiding the victim, etc.