The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the victim was injured at the time of the instant case, there was no need to take measures to rescue the victim, and there was no intention to escape because he requested the J to handle the accident while leaving the scene of the accident.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 7,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of Article 5-3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the misunderstanding of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles, 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 crime of violating Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases, 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, 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, and the circumstances after the accident. In light of the fact that Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act grants the person who caused the accident an emergency relief responsibility, it is recognized that there was no need to take measures such as aiding the victim.

It shall be objectively and clearly revealed immediately after the accident that there is no need to take other emergency measures, and it shall be concluded that there was no need to do so only on the ground that there was no big inconvenience in the victim’s movement after the accident, there was no significant external appearance, and that the degree of damage was relatively minor.