All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Since a traffic accident caused by mistake of facts is a minor accident that did not require measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act in light of all the circumstances, it does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicle). Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant of this violation is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above crime.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the legal interest and protection thereof, in a case where it is not acknowledged that the accident driver required to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as providing the victim with relief, etc., even if the accident driver actually left the place of accident, it does not constitute a crime of violation of Article 5-3(1) of the Road Traffic Act. However, whether it was necessary to take measures such as providing relief to the victim, the determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account the details and details of the accident, the victim’s age and degree of injury, and the circumstances after the accident. However, in light of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act granting the person who caused the accident an emergency relief responsibility, it is recognized that there was no need to take relief measures such as providing relief to the victim.

It should be objectively and clearly revealed immediately after the accident that there is no need to take other emergency measures, and the victim's movement immediately after the accident.