The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant reported 119 directly at the site of the accident so that the victim of the first-aid vehicle may be sent back, and left the site. On the following day of the accident, the Defendant discovered the hospital hospitalized by the victim before the police investigation, thereby informing the Defendant of the personal information, and thus, took necessary relief measures.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “the 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 victim’s vehicle,” without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, despite the victim’s awareness of the fact that the accident was caused by the accident, refers to the case where the accident occurred without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, which makes it impossible to determine who caused the accident.” The “measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act” includes the case where the driver’s identity is expressed to the person involved in the traffic accident such as the victim or police officer, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5748, Mar. 25, 2003). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was found to be the victim and his phone number on the day after the accident or the accident.