The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that, after considering the following circumstances in its reasoning, the defendant's head was faced with the victim's boomer of the victim's vehicle while driving the vehicle, due to the shock, the victim's head was faced with the victim's boomer, the victim's vehicle was at the entrance of the parking lot and demanded the victim to move the vehicle from another person, the victim was traveling the vehicle, and the victim was forced to leave the parking lot, and the victim immediately left the scene of the victim's moving, and the defendant was not informed of the victim's personal information and contact details at the time of the victim's moving, and the victim was receiving a medical treatment for one week after being diagnosed with the victim's unknown medical treatment for approximately two weeks of the accident in this case, the victim was diagnosed with the victim's illness, but the victim was aware of the victim's injury due to the accident in this case without providing relief to the victim or confirming the victim's identity.

2. However, it is difficult to accept such a determination by the lower court for the following reasons.

In light of the legislative intent and protected legal interest of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is a provision on the aggravated punishment of an escape vehicle driver, when it is not deemed necessary to take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as providing the victim with relief, in comprehensive consideration of the details and contents of the accident, the age and degree of the victim, and the circumstances after the accident, etc., the specific crime is committed even if the accident driver leaves the place of the accident without taking measures such as aiding the victim.