A. (1) In light of the following facts: (a) misunderstanding of facts: (i) the Defendant’s (i) misunderstanding of facts in the night at the time of the instant accident; (b) the road was ice down; (c) the collision between the Defendant’s driver taxi and the damaged vehicle was very insignificant; (d) the Defendant was driving long distance before he was on board the customer even after the instant accident; (iv) the Defendant was subscribed to the J mutual aid; and (e) the Defendant’s taxi was not a motive to escape; (v) the driver’s license was revoked in the event of the instant accident; and (v) the Defendant’s livelihood as a taxi engineer would threaten the Defendant’s livelihood. In light of the above, the Defendant continued driving without recognizing the occurrence of the instant accident; and (e) the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to escape.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the grounds that the defendant had a criminal intent to flee, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended execution in August, community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and the Defendant’s defense counsel argued the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court stated that (i) according to CCTV images, the Defendant was faced with shock by a taxi driving by the Defendant and turned down to the central separation zone; (ii) the Defendant’s taxi turn back to the right sidewalk and stopped after shocking the Defendant’s taxi; (iii) the witness F and the victim were to have caused shocks sufficiently; and (iv) the Defendant did not take all measures such as opening a door and confirming the situation of the accident.