The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding person/Type unfair);

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant did not have to rescue the victim who is the passenger of the Defendant’s vehicle because he had no particular address, and even if the victim had already been aware of the Defendant’s personal information in the accident site, the Defendant does not constitute “domination” as provided by Article 5-3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. However, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s secession from the accident site constituted “domination” as provided by Article 5-3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, one hundred and sixty hours of community service order, and forty hours of attending order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) The case where the driver of the vehicle in question who committed a crime under Article 268 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) does not take any action under Article 45(1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding the victim, etc., “when the driver of the vehicle in question runs away without taking any action under Article 5(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” means not only the case where the driver of the vehicle in question knows the victim of the traffic accident at an appropriate place, but also the case where the driver of the vehicle in question does not take any action under Article 45(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”), but also the case where the driver of the vehicle in question runs away without taking any follow-up measures, such as taking any emergency treatment by removing the obstacles on the road that occurred due to the accident, and seeks the traffic safety by seeking such measures (see Supreme Court Decision 74Do2013, Sep. 24, 1974).