The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case in spite of the fact that the defendant could not recognize the occurrence of the traffic accident of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The term "when the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, etc." under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the board means a situation in which it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident as to whether the injured person runs away from the accident site before he/she performs his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person although he/she knows that the injured person was killed or injured, or not taking such measures. The degree of recognition of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured is not a conclusive but do not necessarily require confirmation, and if the injured person runs away from the accident site without being aware that the driver had the intention to escape even if he/she had been able to confirm the accident if he/she was directly checked immediately after the accident, even though he/she was able to do so, even if he/she did not take such measures.

It can be seen (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do5023, Mar. 28, 2000). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant had an intention to flee even though he/she knew of the occurrence of the instant accident.

may be appointed by a person.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case is justifiable.

(1) The defendant is going to stand a crosswalk in front of the right side of the vehicle in which he/she attempted an illegal internship.