The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the shock level and degree of the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle and the victim’s D driver’s vehicle, and the part and degree of the above victim’s injury and the treatment progress, etc., it was necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the above victim

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for one year suspension, 120 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of lecture order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the protection of such legal interests, etc., it was necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the driver of the accident in fact.

If it is not recognized, the driver of the accident shall not take measures, such as aiding the victim, but leave the place of the accident.

Although the crime of violating Article 5-3(1) of the Road Traffic Act was not established, the determination of whether there was a need to take measures, such as aiding and abetting the victimized person ought to be made by comprehensively taking into account the details and details of the accident, the age and degree of the injured person’s injury, and the circumstances after the accident. However, in light of the fact that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act imposes an emergency relief liability on the person who caused the accident, there was no need to take measures, such as aiding and abetting the injured person.

In order to recognize it, it is not necessary to actively express that relief measures are unnecessary on the part of the victim or to take other emergency measures.