The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or finding the Defendant guilty, even though the evidence of this case alone did not recognize that the Defendant had intentionally deserted the scene of escape, with the victim in need of relief measures, by misapprehending the legal principles.

① The victim of the instant case was faced with the Defendant’s vehicle and was in front of the victim.

Therefore, it was difficult for the defendant to recognize the occurrence of the accident itself.

(2) The injured party's wife shall not be deemed to be an injury to the extent necessary to take relief measures.

③ In light of the Defendant’s behavior and surrounding circumstances before and after the occurrence of the instant accident, there was an intentional escape of the Defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

2. Determination

A. The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by an escapeing vehicle of the relevant legal doctrine refers to a situation in which, even though the driver of an accident is aware of the fact that he/she has killed or injured a person due to an accident, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty provided for in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is unable to identify who has caused the accident. Here, the degree of awareness of the fact that the injured person caused the accident does not necessarily require confirmation, but does not necessarily require confirmation, and the degree of recognition of the fact that the injured person is aware of the fact that he/she caused the accident, if he/she deserts from the scene of the accident, there

할 것이다( 대법원 2011. 4. 28. 선고 2010도 13091 판결 등 참조). 나. 판단 살피건대, 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 목격차량의 블랙 박스 영상( 증거 순번 13)에 의하면, 피해자가 달려가다가 피고 인의 차량 옆에서 뒤로 튕겨 져...