The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Ulsan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term "cases where a victim of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, etc." as prescribed by Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means cases where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of the accident before fulfilling his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, although he/she knows that the victim of the accident was killed or wounded, resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident

However, it was necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the actual victims, in full view of the details and contents of the accident, the injury of the victim, the degree of negligence of the driver involved in the accident, the age and gender of the driver involved in the accident and the victim, the circumstances after the accident, etc.

In a case where it is not recognized, even if the driver of an accident left the scene prior to the performance of his/her duty provided for in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc., the crime of violating Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes cannot be punished (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1483, Apr. 15, 2005). 2. The court below, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, necessary to take measures, such as aiding the victim of the accident in the instant case, but without taking necessary measures to rescue the victim, but, without taking necessary measures to rescue the victim, ordering the victim and leaving the scene before leaving the scene, constitutes "Dokju" as provided for in Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and having the criminal intent to escape.

The judgment of the first instance court which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged was affirmed as it is.

3. However, it is difficult to accept such determination by the lower court for the following reasons.

(1) The court below's decision.