The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, misunderstanding of the legal principle) is true that there was a danger to the life and body of the victim due to the instant case, but this is merely a danger and the injury cannot be deemed as an "injury" as provided for in the crime of escape vehicle, and the lower court convicted the defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

"When a driver runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim" refers to cases where a driver of an accident runs away from the scene before fulfilling the 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 or injured, resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident, even though the driver of the accident knew that the victim was killed or injured.

Therefore, in order to establish the above crime of escape driving, the result of the victim's thought should arise, and annoying, which is extremely extremely difficult to be evaluated as "injury" under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, should be treated as an upper state, and thus, in a case where it cannot be deemed that the above crime of escape driving violated health conditions, the above crime is not established.

In light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of a fugitive driver under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the protected legal interests thereof, in a case where it is not recognized that there was a need to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, the accident driver shall not take measures such as aiding a victim, and even if the accident driver leaves the place of the accident, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes does not take measures such as aiding a victim.