The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Taking into account the degree of damage inflicted on the victim due to the instant accident, the gist of the grounds for appeal did not require the Defendant to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and as the Defendant informed the victim of wrong telephone numbers by mistake, the Defendant did not have the intent of escape.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

2. Determination:

A. The phrase “when a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim,” as prescribed by Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to a situation in which it is impossible for the driver of an accident to determine who caused the accident to leave the scene before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she knew that the victim was killed due to an accident.

Therefore, in order to establish a crime of escape driving, the result of ideology should arise to the victim. Annoyinger, which is extremely extremely low to the extent that it cannot be assessed as "injury" as stipulated in Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, should be treated as an upper state, and thus, if it cannot be deemed that the crime of escape driving infringed on health conditions, such crime is not established.

In light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of a fugitive driver as prescribed by Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the protected legal interests thereof, the accident driver is not deemed to have necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim actually, in light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of a fugitive driver.