The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal was that the Defendant was unaware of the occurrence of the instant accident due to occupational negligence, which caused the Defendant’s vehicle to be illegally carried on at the time of the instant case, and accordingly, the Defendant left the scene of the accident without entirely recognizing that the victim was injured by his act

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which did not take measures after the accident, was erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a driver of a motor vehicle is negligent in performing his/her duty of care and the victim was injured while driving the motor vehicle, the driver of the motor vehicle can be recognized as negligence on the injury of the victim who did not directly conflict with the motor vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do866, Sept. 12, 1989). "When the driver of the motor vehicle runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc." under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the term "when the driver of the motor vehicle escaped without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, although the driver of the motor vehicle knew of the fact that the victim was injured due to the accident, it means the case where the driver of the motor vehicle was absent from the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, and the degree of recognition is sufficient.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do833, Jul. 11, 1995). Also, as a subjective element of constituent elements of crime, dolusent intent is not clear, and thus, it is acceptable in light of the possibility of occurrence of crime.