The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the accident of mistake of facts is merely a minor contact accident, the defendant was not aware of the occurrence of the traffic accident of this case, there was no intention of escape. Since the victim did not have the degree of damage to the extent that the victim did not have to take relief measures and did not need it, the court below found the facts charged of this case and convicted the defendant by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative purpose of Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act as to the assertion of mistake of facts (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) and the legal interest protected under Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act, in a case where it is deemed necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as the victim’s actual relief, if the accident driver does not take such measures as aiding the victim, the accident driver does not take such measures as aiding the victim, and even if the accident driver leaves the place, it does not constitute a violation of Article 5-3(1) of the Special Cases Act or a violation of Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act. However, the existence of the need to take such measures shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s parts and degree, the situation after the accident occurred, the period, time and details of treatment, the period and contents of treatment, the age and health condition of the victim, etc.