The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) was unaware of the occurrence of a traffic accident. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant was unaware of the occurrence of a traffic accident; (b) the Defendant did not contact the vehicle driven by the Defendant with the vehicle driven by the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant was not informed of the occurrence of an accident at the scene of the accident in which the

As can be misunderstood, the defendant escaped without taking relief measures, etc.

On the ground that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, it erred by mistake.

The argument is asserted.

2. Determination

A. The former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010)

b. Article 5-3(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “When the driver of an accident runs away without taking the measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the damaged person, etc.” refers to cases where the driver of an accident runs away from the accident scene before fulfilling his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person although he/she knows that the injured person was killed or injured, resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to identify the person who caused the accident, because he/she escaped from the accident scene before performing his/her duty

In this context, the degree of perception of the fact that the injured person was killed due to an accident is not necessarily required to be confirmed, and even if dolusent, it is sufficient to recognize that the injured person was aware of the fact, and in case of leaving from the accident site, there is a dolusent perception if he was aware of the fact that the injured person was aware of the fact that he was killed

The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined and the result of on-site inspection in the trial of the party, and in light of such facts, the defendant can be acknowledged as follows. (b) The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined and the result of on-site inspection in the trial of the party.