The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not need to take measures necessary to provide relief to the victims after the accident or to prevent and eliminate any traffic danger, etc., as the shock and the degree of injury of the victims caused by the accident in this case is insignificant; and

In addition, the defendant asked the victims immediately after the accident whether or not to inflict an injury, leaving his own vehicle equipped with the defendant's order at the site and leaving the site at a locking and did not escape intentionally.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding the defendant guilty.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the records and arguments, the victim's injury caused by the accident in this case cannot be deemed to have been merely in danger to life and body, or annoyeder who cannot be assessed as "injury" under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to have been merely in danger to life and body, and there is no need to take relief measures against the victims at the time. At the time, the defendant cannot be deemed to have fully implemented relief measures and identification measures against the victims. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is rejected.

The term "cases where a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim or aiding a victim" in Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means cases where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene before performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim although he/she knows that the victim was killed or injured, resulting in a situation in which

(2) an accident.