The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (2014 Highest 6328) The Defendant did not have paid a traffic accident and did not know that the victims suffered an injury due to a traffic accident, so there is no intention to escape.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

(a) "When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, etc." under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to the case where the driver of an accident, despite his knowledge of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do375, May 12, 1998; 99Do2869, Dec. 7, 1999). Moreover, “the degree of perception of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident” as referred to in this context does not necessarily need to be determined, and dolusence is sufficient.

(1) In light of the nature of an object, a subjective element of a crime can only be proven by means of an indirect or circumstantial fact that has a substantial relation with a criminal intent or awareness of the fact in light of the nature of the object, and what constitutes an indirect fact that has considerable relevance is reasonably linked to a fact based on the ordinary rule of experience. In light of the general rule of experience, a subjective element of a crime can only be reasonably linked to a fact based on the close observation or analysis.