The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that each injury of the victims caused by the instant traffic accident is so minor that it is possible to recover nature, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a need for relief measures. At the time, the defendant left the scene after confirming the victims' getting out of the damaged vehicle, and received an accident from the insurance company, so it is difficult to view that the defendant had a criminal intent to commit an escape, thereby evaluating the defendant's act of escape at the scene and recognizing the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim” refers to a case where a driver of an accident does not take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act despite the victim’s awareness of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident and brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3605, Jan. 27, 2006). In light of the legislative intent and legal interests and interests of the above provision regarding the aggravated punishment of a driver of an escape vehicle, whether the driver of an accident actually needs to take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the situation and contents of the accident, the victim’s age and part and degree of the injury, the circumstances after the accident, etc., but it was not necessary to recognize the need to take emergency relief measures, etc.

(b) there is no need to take any other emergency action.