2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by causing a traffic accident and failed to fully implement necessary measures, such as relief measures, and the escape can be sufficiently recognized.

① It is recognized that the Defendant informed another victim F or towing engineer H of his name and contact information and sought understanding, leaving the scene, and that contact with the victim late after the day of the instant case is recognized.

2. However, the Defendant did not inform the victim of his name and contact details.

③ The Defendant did not fully implement relief measures, such as sending the victim to the hospital, taking contact with the hospital, and appears to have never sought understanding on the victim’s leaving the scene (the victim’s statement). (4) Since the intensity of collision seems to have been significantly strong at the time, the Defendant was in a situation in which the victim was not required to take relief measures (see the victim’s statement and accident scene photo).

There is no fact that the victim talked to the purport that “the victim is not in need of relief measures” to the Defendant (the victim returned home using the victim’s father’s driver’s drive, not by driving the damaged vehicle directly). ⑤ The Defendant does not have contact with the 112, 119, and towing company (the police seems to have contact with the victim’s father, the towing company, and the towing company). (b) The judgment of the court below is based on the above circumstances that the court below properly stated.