A. In the event of the accident of this case, the victims did not appeal the pain, and there was no external injury, and there was no specific error in the damaged vehicle, and there was no product from the accident of this case. Thus, there was no need to take measures pursuant to Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victims, and the injury suffered by the victims cannot be assessed as "the injury" under the law as naturally recoverable, but the court below convicted all of the facts charged of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the relevant legal doctrine and the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, etc., despite the awareness of the fact that the injured person was killed due to the accident, without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act. Measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act include a case where the driver’s identity of the injured person is identified as the driver of the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5748, Mar. 25, 2003). In order for the injured person to be aware of the fact that the injured person was killed, annoy evaluation of the victim’s life and body need to be conducted without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act. As such, annoy evaluation of the victim’s death and body need to be conducted.