The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Erroring facts: (a) The instant accident was not a serious accident due to the occurrence of the accident, and thus, there is no need to take relief measures when considering the victim’s injury, the scale of the accident, etc.; (b) the Defendant confirmed whether the victim was injured by the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident; (c) notified the Defendant’s cell phone number to the victim; and (d) even though there was no intention to commit an escape, such as the receipt of the accident by the insurance company, the lower court, which
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
A. 1) In light of the fact that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act grants emergency relief liability to a person who has caused an accident, etc., the determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (i) whether there was a need to take relief measures; (ii) whether there was a need to do so; and (iii) whether there was a need to do so; (iv) whether there was a need to take such measures, such as providing relief, should be objectively and clearly revealed at the time immediately after the accident, in order to find that there was no need to take measures, such as providing relief, in light of the fact that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act imposes an emergency relief liability on the person who has caused the accident; and (iv) there was no need to take relief measures, such as actively expressing the need to take relief measures on the part of the victim; and (v) there was no significant inconvenience in the victim’s operation after the accident, and there was no external action, and the degree of damage was found relatively minor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1317.