The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) victim E and G suffered injury to the extent that there is a need to receive relief from Defendant due to traffic accidents on March 15, 2013, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

(2) On July 13, 2013, a proxy driver was standing on the road while driving the instant vehicle, and the Defendant did not drive the instant vehicle.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) 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 its legal interest, etc., if it is not acknowledged that an accident driver required to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim, even if the accident driver actually left the place of accident without taking measures such as aiding and abetting 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 and abetting the victim, the determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account the circumstance and contents of the accident, the age and degree of the victim, and the circumstances following the accident. However, if the defendant in large case did not give the victim an opportunity to make a statement by directly communicating with the victim, or at least, it is possible to determine that the defendant was not required to take relief measures.