All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor’s sentencing of the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, one year of probation, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles: In light of the degree of injury to the victims, the background leading up to the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, etc., the Defendant did not recognize the victims’ injury, and there was no need to take relief measures. In addition, in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim F, and the situation at the time, the Defendant’s act of escaping from the above site was for the purpose of defending or avoiding harm, such as the use of violence by the victim F who abused the Defendant before, and thus, there was no possibility of expectation that the Defendant would take relief measures against the victim F, etc. Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty even though the instant facts charged were not guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the necessity of relief measures is established when a driver who committed a crime under Article 268 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes does not take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim due to traffic of a motor vehicle, etc., and resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to identify the identity of the person who caused the accident because he/she escaped from the scene of the accident. Determination of whether there was a need for relief should be made by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) details of the accident; (b) the victim’s age and degree of injury; and (c) circumstances following the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1339, Jul. 10, 2008; and (d) there was no need to take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim.