The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. After a misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant got off from the accident and divided the talk with the victim, and the victim was able to take the Defendant’s vehicle number into a mobile phone by getting off the taxi from the taxi.

피해자가 멀쩡하게 걸어 다니는 등 구호조치의 대상이 아니었다.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of a fugitive driver as provided in Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the protected legal interest thereof, in a case where it is not acknowledged that the accident driver required to take measures as provided in Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as the actual rescue of the victim, etc., even if the accident driver left the place where the accident occurred without taking measures such as aiding the victim, it does not constitute a crime of violation of Article 5-3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act. 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's injury, and the circumstances after the accident. In light of the fact that Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act grants the person who caused the accident an emergency relief responsibility, it is found that there was no need to take relief measures such as aiding the victim.

It should be objectively and clearly revealed immediately after the accident that there is no need to take other emergency measures, and it will be big to the movement of the victim immediately after the accident.