A. Since the defendant confirmed the state of the victim D (hereinafter "victim") after the accident of this case after the accident of this case, the victim left the scene of the accident without any warning from the defendant, and the defendant left the scene of the accident even though he did not return to the scene of the accident, he did not think that the victim did not have any other child and left the scene of the accident, the court below convicted the defendant of this part of the facts charged. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance and that the Defendant agreed with the victim, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (5 million won) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in determining the assertion of mistake of facts are consistent with the following: ① The victim, from the police to the court of the lower court, stated that “I am “I am hye” to the Defendant due to the shock of the victim’s hye while driving a vehicle by the Defendant,” and that “I am hye at the time when I am hye,” and that “I am the victim’s father who was on the road adjacent to the road at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the road, I fled during the construction of the road” (the victim’s escape during May 11, 2013 prepared by the victim (the 31st day of the litigation record is written to the effect that the victim was partially different from the victim’s above statement, but the victim was written in the court of the facts.