The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant did not know the victims of the instant accident at the time of the instant accident, it was necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victims at the time of the instant accident.

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and its legal interests, etc., it was necessary to take measures pursuant to Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the driver of the accident in fact.

If it is not recognized, the driver of the accident shall not take measures, such as aiding the victim, but leave the place of the accident.

In light of the fact that Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act imposes an emergency relief liability on a person who caused an accident, it does not need to take measures, such as providing relief to the injured person. However, whether it was necessary to take measures, such as providing relief to the injured person, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) details of the accident; (b) the injured person’s age and degree of the injured person’s injury; (c) the injured person’s age and degree; and (d) the circumstances after the accident.

In order to recognize it, it should be objectively and clearly expressed that relief measures are unnecessary on the part of the victim, or that there is no need for other emergency measures, at the time immediately after the accident.