The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case even though there was no intention to flee, and it was difficult to deem that the Defendant had a duty to rescue the victim in light of the circumstances of the accident or the degree of damage, etc., was erroneous or misapprehension of the legal doctrine

B. The penalty of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (one million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) is erroneous or misapprehension of the legal principle

Article 5-3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act "when a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim or a police officer, although the driver of an accident recognizes the fact that the victim was killed or injured, such as aiding the victim, etc., brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed because he/she went away from the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim. The purpose of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic danger and impediments on the road and ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic accidents. In such cases, the measures to be taken by the driver shall be appropriately taken according to the specific circumstances such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree thereof shall be included in the calculation of the identity of the driver who is related to the traffic accident, but Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall not establish a sound and reasonable traffic accident.