The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the victim stated that he is fine for the defendant immediately after the accident in this case, left the scene of the accident, and the defendant left the scene of the accident, so it cannot be said that the defendant had criminal intent to escape. The accident in this case was a relatively minor accident, and thus, the defendant did not have any reason to escape.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The phrase "when the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" refers to the case where the driver of an accident, despite his knowledge of the fact that the victim was injured by the accident, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2204, Oct. 21, 1994). Here, the degree of awareness of the fact that the victim was killed by the accident is sufficient if the driver knew of the fact that the victim

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do5023 delivered on March 28, 2000, etc.). Also, in light of the legislative intent and protected legal interest of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the following factors are comprehensively considered: (a) details of the accident; (b) the victim’s age and degree of the injury; and (c) the circumstances following the accident.