The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant, who did not take necessary measures such as aiding the injured party due to the instant traffic accident caused by his occupational negligence, could have escaped.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the legal interest and protection thereof, it was necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the person actually damaged by the driver of the accident.

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 a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the above Act, it shall not be established.

In such a case, whether it was necessary to take measures, such as aiding and abetting the injured 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, and the circumstances following the accident. However, in light of the fact that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act imposes emergency relief liability on a person who caused the accident, there was no need to take measures, such as aiding and abetting the injured person.

In order to recognize that the victim actively expressed that relief measures need not be taken or that other emergency measures do not need to be taken, objective and clearly at the time immediately after the accident should be revealed. Only for the reasons that there was no big inconvenience in the victim’s movement after the accident, and there was no significant appearance, and that there was no need to do so on the sole basis of the fact that there was a fact that the degree of damage was relatively minor.

It shall not be readily concluded (Supreme Court Decision 2006 June 13, 2013).