The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case even though the defendant was aware of physical damage of the victim driving vehicle and asked the victim to handle the accident through the ship thereafter, and did not take relief measures even though he did not know the victim's injury, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. 1) The phrase "when the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim or aiding the victim," under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to a case where the driver of an accident leaves the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, resulting in a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed. Thus, if the driver of the accident escaped from the accident site before he/she performed his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, he/she shall be deemed to fall under "when the driver runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding the victim, etc." (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do254.