The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the circumstances and contents of the accident in this case of mistake of facts, the injury of the victim, the degree and degree of injury, and the circumstances after the accident, etc., the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, despite the difficulty in deeming the victims to have suffered injury to the extent that they should receive relief measures from

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In light of the legislative intent and protected legal interest of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the relevant Act, in a case where it is not deemed necessary to take measures under Article 50(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545), such as providing relief to the victim in full view of the details and contents of the accident, the age of the victim and the degree of the injury, the circumstances after the accident, etc., even if the accident driver leaves the place of the accident without taking measures such as aiding the victim, it does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3(1) of the said Act.

However, the existence or absence of the above relief measures should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim's injury level and degree, the contents of the accident, the circumstances after the accident, the time, circumstances, period, and contents of the treatment, the victim's age and health condition, etc. However, in the case of major cases, it can be determined that the defendant, in direct dialogue with the victim, gives the victim an opportunity to make a statement of pain, or at least, it is not necessary to take relief measures to confirm the victim's condition by stopping the defendant at least, and if not, it should not be easily determined that there was no need to take relief measures.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on January 1, 2002