The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not recognize the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, and there was no intention of escape.

In addition, since the victim's injury caused by the instant traffic accident is extremely no longer likely to be evaluated as "injury" under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, annoyingly annoying behavior is possible. Thus, even if the defendant left the scene of the accident without taking relief measures against the victim, such act cannot be deemed as an "abdomination" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment,

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. "When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim as provided by Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" refers to a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed because the driver escaped from the scene of the accident before he/she performed his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim, although the driver recognizes the fact that the victim was killed and injured. Thus, the crime of escape in order for the crime of escape in question to be established should lead to the result of ideas. The mere danger to the life and body of the victim or the mere danger to the life and body or the injury cannot be assessed as "injury" under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, and thus it is difficult to deem that the above crime is not established (Supreme Court Decision 9Do3910, Feb. 25, 2000).