The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In a case where a driver of a vehicle causes injury to a person by negligence in the course of his/her duties and simultaneously destroys things and absconds therefrom, both crimes against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Road Traffic Act (in a case where the driver of a vehicle runs away after the accident) are established. In this case, each of the above crimes constitutes several crimes (Supreme Court Decision 93Do49 delivered on May 11, 1993). Furthermore, in a case where the driver of a vehicle causes injury to a person by negligence in the course of his/her duties and at the same time, causes injury to a person by negligence in the course of his/her duties and runs away after destroying things (hereinafter referred to as "the second escape"), each of the above crimes constitutes a concurrent crime under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to the first escape (hereinafter referred to as "the crime of violation of Road Traffic Act") and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Vehicles due to the second escape Act).

It is reasonable to view it.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, among the facts charged in the instant case, ① the Defendant was driving a car at Bursom B at around 17:45 on September 3, 2016 and was receiving a driver car at the victim C (hereinafter “the first traffic accident”), and the victim C and the victim E with the passenger. The Defendant was injured by the victim and the victim E., and the Defendant committed a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Measures against Escape Vehicles) due to the act of escape after destroying the car at the above Surs, and ② the Defendant again was the above windton car during the escape.