The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles, the Defendant thought that the instant accident was unfilled and the victim did not differ, and thus, did not escape from the scene of the accident.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence (three million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

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, if 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, the accident driver does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act even if the accident driver actually 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, the determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account the details and details of the accident, the age and degree of the victim, the degree of the injury, the circumstances after the accident, etc., but it is recognized that there was no need to take emergency measures such as aiding the victim in light of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

The circumstances that do not require any other emergency measure should be objectively and clearly revealed at the time immediately after the accident, and there was no big inconvenience to the victim immediately after the accident, and there was no wound in appearance, and the degree of damage is relatively minor.