The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be five million won or more.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is that the victim suffered the injury due to the traffic accident of this case, and the defendant's intention of escape is recognized.

In addition, the defendant, even though the necessity of relief measures was caused by the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, failed to take necessary measures.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of drivers of escape vehicles under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) and the legal interest and protection thereof, it was necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victims of the accident in fact.

If it is not recognized, the driver of the accident shall not take measures, such as aiding the victim, but leave the place of the accident.

Even if a special case is committed, the violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act shall not be committed.

However, whether it was necessary to take measures, such as aiding and abetting the injured party, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and details of the accident, the age and degree of the injured party’s injury, and the circumstances following the accident. In light of the fact that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act grants emergency relief responsibility to the person who caused the accident, there was no need to take measures, such as aiding and aiding the injured party.

In order to recognize the need to actively express the victim’s failure to take relief measures or to take other emergency measures at the time immediately after the accident, objective and clearly revealed the situation that the victim’s failure to take relief measures or does not need to take other emergency measures, and only on the ground that there was no big inconvenience in the victim’s movement immediately after the accident, and there was no significant inconvenience in appearance, and that there was no need to do so after the accident.

No decision shall be made (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do134 Decided May 28, 2009).