The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In relation to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, among the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, the court below assessed the defendant's act of leaving the scene as escape and found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges since each injury of the victims caused by the traffic accident in this case is so minor that it is possible to recover nature and thus it is difficult to view that the situation requiring relief

2. Determination

A. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim” refers to a case where a driver of an accident does not take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act despite the victim’s awareness of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident and brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3605, Jan. 27, 2006). In light of the legislative intent and legal interests and interests of the above provision regarding the aggravated punishment of a driver of an escape vehicle, whether the driver of an accident actually needs to take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the situation and contents of the accident, the victim’s age and part and degree of the injury, the circumstances after the accident, etc., but it was not necessary to recognize the need to take emergency relief measures, etc.

It should be objectively and clearly revealed immediately after the accident that there is no need to take any other emergency measure.