The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Progress of judgment and scope of judgment of this court;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of all the facts charged, and against this, the Defendant filed an appeal on the grounds of the lower judgment’s misapprehension of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (escap vehicles), the violation of the Road Traffic Act (e.g., drinking), the injury, and the obstruction of performing official duties

B. The appellate court prior to the remand has a ground for appeal only for the defendant's allegation of misconception of the facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of Road Traffic Act (driving).

However, the court below reversed the entire judgment of the court below on the ground that the above facts charged and the remaining facts charged are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced a single punishment on the ground that they are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (Provided, That the court below did not render a separate verdict of innocence on the ground that the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not taking measures after the accident) which pronounced guilty and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes are concurrent crimes, and rendered a separate verdict of innocence from the disposition of the court below on the ground that they are concurrent crimes).

On the other hand, the Defendant filed an appeal on the conviction part before remanding the case on the ground of misunderstanding of the legal principles, and the prosecutor filed an appeal on the grounds of violation of the law and misunderstanding of the legal principles with respect to the portion not guilty prior to remanding the case (the appeal was filed against the conviction part, but no specific grounds of appeal are stated in the petition of appeal or the reasoning of appeal). The Supreme Court has only reasons for the Defendant’s appeal against the violation of road traffic law (measures after accidents) and does not accept the remainder of the Defendant’s appeal

Although it is judged, the depth of the party prior to the transmission is due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident).