The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant: (a) confirmed the state of the victims who died at the vehicle immediately after the instant traffic accident; and (b) agreed to provide insurance treatment for medical expenses, etc.; (c) notified the said victims of personal information and contact details; and (d) received an accident from an insurance company; (b) there was no need to take additional measures to rescue victims; and (c) there was no need to leave the scene when the Defendant recognized the need for relief measures.

Therefore, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by mistake of facts.

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, 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 the actual rescue of the victim, etc., the accident driver does not constitute a crime of violating Article 5-3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act even if the accident driver left the place where the accident occurred without taking measures such as aiding the victim. However, whether it was necessary to take measures such as aiding the victim in fact should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and details of the accident, the age and degree of the victim, the part and degree of the injury, and the circumstances after the accident. However, in light of the fact that Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act grants emergency relief liability to the person who caused the accident, it is recognized that there was no need to take relief measures such as aiding the victim.

There is no need to take any other emergency measure, and it is objective and clear at the time immediately after the accident.