The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the judgment below which found the defendant guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by recognizing the victim's bodily injury in the course of leaving the scene although the defendant did not have sufficient means to receive relief in light of the degree of shock of the victim E, the attitude of the victim immediately after the accident, and the treatment of the victim, etc., the victim cannot be deemed to have suffered injury to the extent of receiving relief, and the judgment below which found the defendant guilty of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (doing Vehicles) by recognizing the victim's bodily injury in the course of leaving the site was erroneous, and it is improper that the court below's request to amend the bill of amendment to add the escape after the shock of the victim's bodily injury was not found guilty after the injury was caused by the shock of the victim's vehicle which was initially prosecuted, it is unlawful that the court below abused the right

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of an escape vehicle driver as provided by Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the protected legal interest thereof, the victim actively expressed that relief measures need not be taken on the part of the victim in order to recognize that the accident driver did not have to take such measures as aiding the victim under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

No other emergency measure is necessary, objective and clear at the time immediately after the accident should be objectively and clearly revealed. However, it cannot be readily concluded that there was no need to take such measures solely on the ground that there was no significant inconvenience in the victim’s movement immediately after the accident, there was no external appearance, and the degree of damage was proven relatively minor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do1317, May 28, 2009; 201Do14018, Jan. 12, 2012). First, the Defendant’s vehicle is a sea-going vehicle.