The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The victim was in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (i.e., an escapeing vehicle) and the victim was not aware of the need for relief measures due to the instant traffic accident, and the defendant was not aware of the need for relief measures against the victim.

B. The instant traffic accident is very insignificant and there was a need for the Defendant to take measures to ensure smooth traffic by removing any danger and obstacle to traffic.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Determination

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

Even if a special case does not constitute a crime of violation of Article 5-3(1) of the Act; however, whether there was a need to take measures, such as aiding and abetting the damaged person, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the course and contents of the accident, the age and degree of the injured person’s injury, and the circumstances after the accident. However, Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act does not require to take measures, such as aiding and abetting the injured person, in light of the fact that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act imposes an emergency relief responsibility on the person

In order to recognize it, it is objective and objective at the time immediately after the accident that the victim actively expressed that relief measures are unnecessary or that other emergency measures are not necessary.