The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. After the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, the Defendant did not have the intention to flee to the Defendant in light of the fact that the victim was forced to leave the hospital, but the victim was fine and left the scene, etc.

Although the Defendant got slowly from the alleyway, the Defendant did not commit any negligence on the part of the Defendant, and there is no causal relationship between the victim’s injury and the instant traffic accident.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. "A case where a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures as provided in Article 54 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to judge the intention of escape" refers to a case where the driver of an accident stops immediately and leaves the place of accident without taking measures as provided in Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim despite his knowledge of the fact that the victim was injured due to the accident, and brings about a situation where it is impossible to identify the person who caused the accident. "A driver, etc. after the traffic accident stops immediately" provided in Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act refers to the duty to stop immediately unless there are circumstances such as immediately stopping and causing a danger to traffic by causing the driver, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3441, Sep. 28, 2006; 2007Do6300, Dec. 27, 2007).