The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant was unaware of the occurrence of the instant accident at the time of the instant case.

The injury inflicted on the victim due to the instant accident does not constitute “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act.

The accident of this case was very insignificant and there was no need to take relief measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the remaining facts charged except for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) among the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

Judgment

Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding a victim, etc.” refers to a case where a driver of an accident runs away from the scene of an accident before he/she performs his/her duty provided for in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, although he/she knows that the victim was killed due to an accident, resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to identify the person who caused the

Therefore, in order to establish the above crime of escape driving, the result of the victim’s thought must arise, and annoying person, which is extremely extremely low to the extent that it cannot be evaluated as “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, does not need to be treated as a superior situation, so it is difficult to deem that the crime of escape driving constitutes a crime of violation of health conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3078, Oct. 9, 2008). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below’s judgment and the court below’s duly adopted and investigated by evidence, the victim D is a victim.