Nevertheless, the defendant did not check the state of the victim in detail with his body and did not implement relief measures. It is reasonable to view that the defendant, while recognizing that the victim suffered the bodily injury, was out of the accident site and went away from the accident site.

In other words, it will be said that the defendant had the intention to commit the criminal intention of escape.

Nevertheless, the court below sentenced the defendant to dismiss the prosecution as to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) with limited relation, since there was no proof that the defendant had a criminal intent to escape. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

2. The lower court determined: (1) The front part of the victim’s mistake is proceeding slowly.

In light of the fact that the stop is divided into the front wheels of the Defendant’s vehicle, but it does not go off or get off, that the Defendant gets off to the house immediately after the Defendant gets off, and then go off to the house. ② When the Defendant immediately parked the vehicle on the roadside, the victim had already been far far away from the scene of the accident, and the victim’s walking condition was not clear, ③ the Defendant did not immediately leave the scene of the accident. In light of the fact that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor was not enough to recognize the injury of the victim at the time, but did not take relief measures, etc., although the Defendant did not actually recognize the injury of the victim.

or as the criminal intent of the escape.