The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error or misunderstanding of legal principles) of the instant accident is merely a minor accident; the victim’s speech and behavior immediately after the accident occurred and the time when the victim received medical treatment, etc. cannot be deemed to have suffered an injury to the extent that it requires medical treatment due to the instant accident; therefore, it cannot be said that there was a need to rescue the victim at the time of leaving the scene of the accident; therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have escaped from the scene without taking any particular

Even if the victim suffered injuries due to the accident of this case, since the accident was insignificant, there was no special credit to the victim immediately after the accident, and the victim took action as a drunk person without the victim's consent, it cannot be said that the defendant did not feel the necessity of relief against the victim, and left the scene of the accident of this case. Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant had the intention of escape.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish the crime of escape driving under Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, if the victim’s injury occurred and degree of injury, and the necessity of the victim’s relief, the result of thought should arise. Annoying, which is extremely limited to mere danger to life and body, or cannot be assessed as an injury under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, is no need for treatment as an agent, so it is difficult to deem that the crime of this case is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do3910, Feb. 25, 2000).