The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Since damage to the trend of damage inflicted by the victim due to the misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding of the legal principles is deemed to have been naturally beautiful after the previous framework has expired, it cannot be deemed as a legal injury.

At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant was extremely scarfly leaving the scene, and thus, this does not constitute a crime because there is a justifiable reason not to perform the duty to take relief measures, or it falls under a justifiable act or there is no possibility of expectation of lawful act.

The punishment of the court below (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In fact, the part of the assertion that it is not an injury under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) refers to the case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the injured person, and failing to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the injured person, even though he/she was aware of the fact that the injured person was killed due to the accident, resulting in a situation where the identity of the person who caused the accident could not be confirmed because he/she left the scene of the accident before performing the duty under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, in order to establish the above escape driving crime, the result of thought should arise to the victim. The mere danger to life and body is limited, or annoyed, to the extent that it cannot be evaluated as the "injury" as stipulated in Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, is no need for treatment, and thus, it thereby infringing on health conditions.

In a case where it cannot be seen, the above crime is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do3910 delivered on February 25, 200, etc.). In light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of drivers of escape vehicles as provided in Article 5-3 of the Act and the protection of such legal interests, etc.