Since the above provision is a general provision on relief measures in the event of traffic accidents that govern the occurrence of human damage, including where necessary measures are not taken after the occurrence of human damage and where necessary measures are not taken after the occurrence of physical damage, it cannot be separately determined by distinguishing the duty of relief from the duty of relief and the duty of relief for the damaged part.

Therefore, in the case of this case, both the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed Measures after Accidents) are applied, and each of the above crimes is in a relationship of regular concurrence.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant about the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed measures after the accident) among the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination concurrence refers to a case where a single act actually satisfies several constituent elements, and legal concurrence refers to a case where a single act appears to meet the constituent elements of several crimes in appearance, or actually constitutes only one crime. Whether a single crime is actually one crime or several crimes should be determined in terms of the evaluation of constituent elements and the legal interests and interests to be protected.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do782, Jun. 26, 1984; 2002Do6033, Apr. 8, 2003). In addition, the special relationship, which is a form of a legal landscape agreement, is established where a certain constituent element should be included in all other constituent elements, and the special relationship is established where the elements of a special law should be satisfied.