The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not shock the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) with the Defendant’s driver’s car, and the Defendant shocked the victim by family affairs.

Since the defendant left the scene without recognizing it, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts, even though he did not have a criminal intention to escape.

2. The "the time when the driver of an accident runs away without taking such measures as provided in Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as aiding the victim as provided in Article 5-3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act," means the case where the driver of an accident, despite his knowledge of the fact that the victim was injured, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his duty as provided in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed. The degree of awareness of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident in this context is not definitely definite but does not necessarily require a definite confirmation, and if the driver of the accident, even though he could have easily confirmed the fact that the accident was directly confirmed immediately after the accident, he can easily confirm the fact of the accident if he escaped from the accident site without taking such measures, it shall be deemed that the driver of the accident had an intention

(See Supreme Court Decisions 99Do5023 Decided March 28, 200, and 2010Do13091 Decided April 28, 201, etc.). In addition, in light of the legislative intent and protected legal interests of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as actual aiding of victims, are taken.