A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) The victims of the instant accident caused the victims of the instant accident cannot be deemed as “injury” under the Criminal Act, and there was no need to take relief measures. The Defendant, who did not interfere with the flow of traffic, did so to the victimJ on the top of the damaged vehicle, and stopped the Defendant’s vehicle on the side, but did not go back due to the failure of the damaged vehicle to return home, and there was no intention to escape.

Nevertheless, since the court below found all of the charges against victims except L, it erred by misapprehending the facts concerning the necessity of injury and relief in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) It is difficult to deem that it was necessary to take measures to ensure smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles as at the time of leaving the scene of the accident, such as the instant accident that may cause hindrance to traffic conditions or the occurrence of oils, etc.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to necessary measures when a traffic accident occurred in the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

B. The court below's decision on the unfair sentencing is too unreasonable to impose a fine of five million won on the defendant.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. (1) The lower court against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) may comprehensively consider the evidence duly adopted and examined, i.e., the following circumstances that can be admitted.