A. After the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant immediately stopped, checked the state of the victims, and informed the victims of the occurrence of the accident. Since the victims’ wife suffered from the instant accident was extremely limited to an injury under the Criminal Act, annoyed situation is extremely limited to the situation where the victims could not be assessed under the said Act, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was in need to take measures, such as providing relief to the victims at the time.

B. Meanwhile, the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle is minor, and the fugitives caused by the traffic accident were not scattered at the site, and the vehicle was also rare, and the Defendant stopped by driving an emergency, etc. in order to prevent the subsequent accident, and the Defendant was crossing the road on the wall to make a voluntary report to the police who was faced with, and thus, the Defendant should be deemed to have taken measures to the extent ordinarily required in light of the content of the traffic accident and the degree of damage.

C. The grounds for appeal filed on October 13, 2016 after the closing of argument in the trial room are examined to the extent that the foregoing grounds for appeal are supplemented.

The defendant asserts that the police violated the traffic control guidelines in the process of measuring drinking alcohol through the above written supplement of grounds for appeal. However, this is difficult to view it as a legitimate ground for appeal as a legitimate ground for appeal, and even if it is ex officio, it is without merit.

2. Determination

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, in light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of the escapeing driver as provided by Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the protected legal interest thereof, the Road Traffic Act, such as the victim actually