The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, inasmuch as it cannot be deemed that the victim D suffered injuries to the extent of receiving relief in light of the shock, shock, degree of shock, treatment of the victim, etc. by vehicle, etc.

2. In light of the legislative intent of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the legal interest and protection thereof, in a case where it is not acknowledged that the accident driver required to take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as the actual rescue of the victim, etc., the crime of violating Article 5-3 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes does not occur even if the accident driver left the place where the accident occurred without taking measures such as aiding the victim. However, whether it was necessary to take measures such as aiding the victim in fact should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and details of the accident, the age and degree of the victim, the part and degree of the injury, and circumstances after the accident. However, in light of the fact that Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act grants emergency relief liability to the person who caused the accident, it is recognized that there was no need to take relief measures such as aiding the victim.

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.

Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1317 Decided May 28, 2009