The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds of appeal, the victim D sleeped her pain on the part of the instant traffic accident and suffered bodily injury, such as receiving physical treatment.

The court below found the victim not guilty of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (doing vehicles) on the ground that the victim cannot be deemed to have suffered injury, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The phrase "when a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim although the driver of an accident knew of the fact that the victim was killed and wounded," as provided in Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed because he escaped from the scene of the accident before performing the duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim although the driver knew of the fact that the victim was killed and injured. Thus, the crime of escape is established in order to establish the crime of aiding and abetting, the result of the victim's thought must occur. Annoyed situation that cannot be assessed as "injury" as provided in Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act is no longer necessary for treatment, and thus it is difficult to view that the accident infringed health conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do3910, Feb. 25, 2000).