The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of an accident of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the defendant immediately stopped and confirmed that there is no need to take relief measures by checking the condition of the victim directly with the victim, and in fact, the injury of the victim is very insignificant. Thus, this case is not deemed necessary to take relief measures against the victim. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

B. Even if a person is guilty of an unreasonable sentencing decision, the lower court’s punishment (seven million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of a fugitive driver as prescribed by Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) and the legal interest and protection thereof, if it is not acknowledged that there was a need for an accident driver to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as providing relief to the victim, even if the accident driver actually left the place of accident without taking measures such as aiding the victim, it does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3(1) of the Special Crimes Act. However, whether it was necessary to take measures such as aiding the victim, etc. should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and contents of the accident, the age and degree of the victim, and the circumstances following the accident. 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 measures such as aiding the victim.

(b) there is no need to take any other emergency action.