A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding or legal principles, the victim was aware of only the phone number of the defendant at the time when the defendant escaped and did not receive insurance, and the defendant was aware of the fact that the victim reported 112 during dialogue with the victim, and the victim committed an assault to the victim and then escaped, the possibility that the victim could have concealed the defendant cannot be ruled out, and the possibility of causing a new traffic accident in the course of his/her escape is high, and thus, the need to take measures is recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unfasible.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the argument of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is a person engaged in driving BM5 vehicles. On December 15, 2017, the Defendant driven the said vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.131% during blood transfusion on December 15, 2017, and driven the road of the fourth-lane in the front side of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, along the three-lanes toward the station raised from the lush calendar.

A person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the operation and steering gear of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, neglected to stop the signal waiting at the above time while driving, was driven by the victim D(57) who was under the influence of the signal waiting while driving, and got off the part behind the Estyna taxi as part of the front part of the Defendant’s car, thereby damaging the damaged vehicle to cover approximately KRW 695,078, without taking necessary measures for dealing with the traffic accident.

2) The lower court’s determination is based on the relevant legal doctrine.