The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing) reported the name and contact information of the victim immediately after the accident occurred, and returned to the country after temporarily leaving the site for insurance processing. As such, the defendant escaped without taking relief measures.

It can not be seen, and the defendant did not have the intention of escape.

The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, a fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the legislative intent of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the protection of legal interests and interests, it was necessary to take measures under Article 50(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7545), such as aiding and abetting the victim of the accident by comprehensively taking into account the details and details of the accident, the victim’s age and degree of the injury, and the circumstances behind the accident, etc.

If it is not recognized, the driver of the accident shall not take measures, such as aiding the victim, but leave the place of the accident.

Even if Article 5-3 (1) of the above Act is not a violation of Article 5-3 (1).

Therefore, whether the above relief measures are necessary or not should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim's injury level and degree, the contents of the accident and circumstances after the accident, the beginning time, circumstances, period and contents of the treatment, the victim's age and health condition, etc. However, in large cases, it can be determined that the defendant, in direct dialogue with the victim, would give the victim an opportunity to make a statement of pain or stop at least when the defendant does not need to take relief measures so that the victim's condition can be visually verified, and if not, there was no need to take relief measures.

It should not be easily determined (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2085 Decided May 10, 2007).