The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The accident of mistake of facts in this case is merely minor that the defendant, who was waiting in front of the expressway charge settlement office due to the operation of the brake system, and thus did not cause injury to the victims, and the fugitives did not fall on the road. The necessity of relief measures, etc. is not recognized, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have escaped after the accident in this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 7,000,000 imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of escape after the injury under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established when a driver who committed a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to traffic of a motor vehicle et al. departs from the scene of the accident and resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to determine the identity of the person who caused the accident. Whether there was a need to provide relief should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and details of the accident, the victim’s age and degree of the injury, the circumstances after the accident. It is difficult to readily conclude that the victim of the traffic accident did not need to provide relief at the time of the accident solely on the ground that the victim suffered minor injuries, such as light salt, etc. requiring two-time medical treatment (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1339, Jul. 10, 2008) in light of the legislative purport and legal interests protected under Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act.