The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case without the intention to escape because the defendant knew of traffic accident at the time of the case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the board refers to a case where the driver of an accident does not take a measure under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, but does not know the fact that the injured person was injured by the accident, resulting in an accident from leaving the accident site before fulfilling the duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, etc., and resulting in a situation where the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do250, Mar. 12, 2004). Here, the degree of awareness of the fact that the injured person was injured by the accident is not necessarily definitely confirmed, but is sufficiently recognized even if it is possible to know that the injured person was killed by the accident, and if it is possible to know that the accident was caused by the accident from the accident site, it can do so.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it can be seen that the Defendant was easily aware that he/she had not taken such measures despite having been able to confirm the fact of the accident if he/she had been directly checked immediately after the accident, and that he/she left the scene of the accident without knowing that he/she had been aware that he/she had been able to escape from the scene of the accident without taking such measures. As such, the Defendant had an intention to escape with the knowledge of the fact of the accident of this case in question.

may be appointed by a person.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case.