The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) has not inflicted any injury on the victim;

Since the head of the Taekwondo Institute, where the victim was accompanying, did not have to take relief measures, and the defendant did not recognize the necessity of relief measures.

2. Determination

A. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, etc.” refers to a situation where the driver of an accident runs away from the accident scene before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person although he/she was aware of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do250, Mar. 12, 2004). Here, the degree of awareness of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured is not necessarily definite, and if the injured person was aware of the fact that he/she was killed or injured while recognizing the fact that he/she was killed or wounded, it is sufficient if he/she knows the possibility of escape from the accident scene.

In light of the fact that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act imposes an urgent control liability on a person who caused an accident, it was not necessary to take measures such as aiding the victim, etc.

In order to recognize it, it should be objectively and clearly revealed that the victim actively expressed the necessity of relief measures or that there is no need to take other emergency measures at the time immediately after the accident, and there was no big inconvenience in the victim's movement immediately after the accident, and there was no common appearance, and the degree of damage is relatively easy.