The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Egressive Vehicles) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Stressive Measures after Accidents) among the facts charged in the instant case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

2. Determination

A. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the damaged person, etc.” refers to a situation in which the driver of an accident runs away from the scene before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person although he/she recognizes the fact that the injured person was killed or injured, resulting in a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed.

In this context, the degree of perception of the fact that the injured person was killed due to an accident is not necessarily required to be confirmed, and even if dolusent, it is sufficient to recognize that the injured person was aware of the fact, and in case of leaving from the accident site, there is a dolusent perception if he was aware of the fact that the injured person was aware of the fact that he was killed

A seal may be determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13091, Apr. 28, 2011). (b) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the victim’s vehicle driving along the first lane from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below after entering the vehicle into the second lane while making a left-hand turn at the right-hand turn at the right-hand intersection from the investigation agency to the court of the court below.

After the accident, the defendant's vehicle seems to be locked.