The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant did not take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act and convicted the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, directly or through G on board the instant vehicle or H, after causing the instant traffic accident.

B. Taking into account the various circumstances on the Defendant’s point of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of compliance instruction, and 80 hours of social service) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim or aiding the victim, etc.” refers to the case where the driver of an accident leaves the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, resulting in a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed. The measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act include identifying the identity of the driver of the accident, such as the victim or police officer, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5748, Mar. 25, 2003).