The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant, after the occurrence of an accident, ordered the victims after the occurrence of the same accident as stated in the facts constituting an offense; (b) and (c) was unable to take care of the scene of an accident due to the loss of mind; and (d) the Defendant intentionally left the scene of an accident; and (c) the injury suffered by the victims does not constitute an injury to the extent that it is necessary

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty.

2. Determination 1) 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 and abetting the injured person, etc.” refers to a case where the driver of an accident immediately stops and provides assistance to the injured person, etc. despite his knowledge of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured due to the accident, without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and brings about a situation where it is impossible to determine who caused the accident, by leaving the accident site, the identity of the injured person cannot be confirmed, such as aiding and abetting the injured person although the driver of the accident was aware of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured. Thus, if the driver of the accident escaped from the accident site prior to performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and aiding the injured person, he/she provided the injured

Even if a person does not take a measure under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a damaged person, and runs away without taking a measure under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do250, Mar. 12, 2004, etc.). However, in order to establish the crime of escape, the result of the victim’s thought should arise, and the crime of escape should be limited to mere danger to life or body, or Article 257 of the Criminal Act should be limited.