A. In fact, the instant accident is merely a simple contact accident, and the victim E’s motor device bicycle (hereinafter “victim E”) is not damaged or the victims are not injured.

The victim E received an estimate of the repair cost of the damaged Oral Ba and even based on the black stuff image after the 19th day from the date of the instant accident, the damaged vehicle was damaged.

The view does not appear.

At the time of the accident, the victims were able to sit as they were on the part of the victim, and the victim E did not state that the victims only demanded the vehicle to the defendant at the time of the accident of this case.

In light of these circumstances, the Defendant needs to take measures, such as aiding the victim under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act at the time of the instant accident.

As the defendant did not know, there is a criminal intent to take measures after the escape or accident after the death or injury in the course of duty.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. "When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter "Special Cases")" refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of the accident before he/she performs his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person despite his/her awareness of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured, resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident, and the victim of the accident.