The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The injury suffered by the victims of the summary of the grounds for appeal was insignificant and there was no need to take relief measures, and the Defendant did not escape because, in order to handle the accident, the victimized vehicle entered the alley by using the damaged vehicle, left the alley and stopped on the roadside, and left the gleep hotel after leaving the gleep hotel.

It is true that the court below erred in finding guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicle).

2. Determination

A. In light of the purpose of legislation and protected legal interests under Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act as to the part of the injury, if it is not acknowledged that the accident driver required to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as providing relief to the victim in fact, the accident driver does not take measures such as providing relief to the victim and does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3(1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes or Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act. However, the existence of the need to take measures when the accident occurred shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s parts and degree, the situation after the accident occurred, the time and period of medical treatment, the age and health condition of the victim, the age of the victim, and the circumstances after the accident. However, in the case of large dialogue with the victim, if the defendant does not give any opportunity to make a statement, or the defendant does not need to take relief measures as a stop at least 14.