The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) stated that the Defendant did not need to take necessary measures, such as immediately stopping the victim in light of the degree of the victim’s injury, the degree of damage to the damaged vehicle, the situation of the accident place, etc., and there was no need to take necessary measures, such as aiding the damaged person.

In addition, the defendant did not have the intention to escape because he had the victim's contact address and left the scene.

In the instant accident, the victim did not have any injury that requires two weeks’ medical treatment during the instant accident, and even if so, the victim sustained such injury by the instant accident.

This does not constitute injury under the criminal law.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the necessity of relief measures and the intention to recognize escape 1) In light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of drivers of escape vehicles under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the protection of the legal interests and interests thereof, it was necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim actually.

If it is not recognized, the driver of the accident shall not take measures, such as aiding the victim, but leave the place of the accident.

Even if there is no violation of Article 5-3(1) of the Road Traffic Act. However, whether there was a need to take measures, such as aiding and abetting the victimized person, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and details of the accident, the age and degree of the injured person’s injury, the circumstances behind the accident, etc. However, the person who caused the accident under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act shall be held responsible for emergency control.