The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The victim cannot be deemed as an injury to the extent that the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). Even if it is not so, the defendant was not required to rescue the victim at the time of the instant accident, and the defendant did not have any intention to escape.

(2) With respect to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as "accidents"), the accident in this case revealed that the strike did not spawn on the road, and the victim at the time also stated that there is no interference with the operation of the vehicle. The defendant did not have to take measures to prevent and eliminate traffic danger and interference.

B. The Defendant’s fine of KRW 3 million imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In order to establish the crime of escapeing driving under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as to whether the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) is recognized or not, the result of the death must be generated to the victim. The mere danger to life and body is limited, or annoyying that cannot be assessed as "injury" under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act does not require treatment as a standing position, and thus it is difficult to view that the crime of escape driving under this Article is not established in a case where it is difficult to

(대법원 1997. 12. 12. 선고 97도2396 판결 참조). 그러나 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 피해자는 이 법정에서 "이 사건 사고 당시 ‘쾅’하는 소리가 크게 났고 피해자는 차량 충돌의 충격으로 목이 앞으로 꺽인 후 다시...