A. In relation to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) among the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not directly shock the damaged vehicle, and therefore leaving the scene is not based on the intention of escape.

Even though it is difficult to see that the injury suffered by the victim is an injury requiring relief measures, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of a fine of five million won imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is pointed out that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: ① the victim has consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court on the part that the vehicle of the defendant shocked the victim's vehicle; ② the defendant has supported the victim's above statement; ② the victim has first shocked the damaged vehicle in the order of accident; and ② the shock absorption device was first shocked in the order of accident; ② the defendant has been using a consistent statement on whether the shock absorption device was first shocked. However, in light of the fact that the damaged vehicle and the shock absorption device were almost similar to the damaged vehicle at the time, and G has testified that the defendant was sufficiently shocked at the same time, it is difficult to see that it was an important circumstance to conceal the credibility of the victim's statement; ③ the degree of damage to the central absorption tank and whether the defendant was guilty after the accident, as well as the consistency of the defendant's statement.