The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (U.S.) by mistake of facts does not require the criminal intent and relief measures of the defendant, and in the case of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (U.S.) in the case of the crime of this case, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, although it is not recognized that the defendant is not obliged to remove any traffic danger

B. The sentence of a fine of five million won imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the legislative intent of the provisions on the aggravated punishment, etc. of a fugitive driver as prescribed in Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) and the protected legal interest thereof, in a case where it is deemed necessary to take measures as prescribed in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim, even if the accident driver actually left the place of accident without taking such measures as aiding and abetting the victim, it does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3(1) of the Special Cases Act. However, whether it was necessary to take such measures as aiding and abetting the victim, etc. should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the situation and contents of the accident, the age and degree of the victim, the part and degree of the injury, the circumstances after the accident, etc., and in light of the fact that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act grants the person who caused the accident an urgent relief responsibility, the victim expressed that there was no need to take relief measures, etc.

There is no need to take any other emergency measure, and it is objective and clear at the time immediately after the accident.