The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and the degree of injury of the victims by misunderstanding the legal principles, the circumstances where the victims received medical treatment at one Council member, the victims’ actions during the period of hospitalization, and the victims’ careers, etc., the Defendant was necessary to take measures, such as aiding the victims after the instant accident.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of relevant legal principles 1) The existence of necessity for relief measures ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) details and content of the accident; (b) the victim’s injury level and degree; (c) the details and circumstances after the accident; (d) the time and period of commencement of medical treatment; and (e) the victim’s age and health condition (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1339, Jul. 10, 2008; 2010Do1330, Oct. 14, 2010, etc.); (b) however, in large cases, the Defendant could be determined as a case where the victim provided a victim with an opportunity to make a statement of pain by directly communicating with the victim; or (d) the Defendant was stopped so that there was no need for relief measures if not, there was no need for relief measures.

No determination may be made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2085, May 10, 2007; 2010Do1330, Oct. 14, 2010); and (c) there was no need to take measures, such as aiding and abetting the victimized person.

In order to recognize the need for relief measures in the victim’s side or other emergency measures are not necessary, objective and clear at the time immediately after the accident should be made. Only such reasons as there was no big inconvenience in the victim’s movement after the accident, there was no significant damage in appearance, and the degree of damage was proven relatively minor.