The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) did not know the fact that the Defendant was provokingd against the victim due to Obato, and thus, there was no intention to escape, and there was no need to protect the victim due to the instant accident.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

(a) The phrase “when a driver of an accident runs away without taking the measures provided for in Article 50(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as aiding a victim, etc.” provided for in Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against his/her assertion that he/she had no intention to escape because he/she was unable to recognize the fact of the accident refers to cases where the driver of an accident leaves the scene before performing his/her duty provided for in Article 50(1)

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do375, May 12, 1998; 99Do2869, Dec. 7, 1999). Moreover, “the degree of perception of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident” as referred to in this context does not necessarily need to be determined, and dolusence is sufficient.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6485 Decided December 9, 2004, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was aware of the occurrence of the instant accident, or at least didlusently aware of the occurrence of the instant accident.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. On the assertion that the measures for relief were not necessary.