The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, the misapprehension of the legal principle) was the defendant's progress without knowing the occurrence of the instant accident at all, and the defendant has no intention to escape.

(De Facto Error) Furthermore, the injured party’s wife suffered from the instant accident is minor and minor, so that it cannot be evaluated as an injury under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, and does not constitute the result of an injury to establish the crime of escape driving.

(Lawioio). Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. "When a person runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" means a case where the driver of an accident, despite his knowledge of the fact that the victim was injured by an accident, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed, and the degree of awareness of the fact that the victim was killed by the accident is not necessarily definite but can be recognized even if it is dolusent

(1) In light of the legislative intent and legal interest and protection of the provisions of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”), if it is not deemed necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as the actual relief of victims, the accident driver shall take such measures as aiding the victim.