2. We also examine the judgment and prosecutor’s improper claims for sentencing.

It is recognized that there is a circumstance under which the crime of this case or its possibility of criticism can not be easily seen, such as the fact that the Defendant, while driving an Oral Ba, which was not covered by mandatory insurance without a driver's license, caused the instant traffic accident, and the Defendant escaped without taking any measures, such as aiding and abetting the victim E, who is the passenger of Oral Ba, and that the Defendant did not agree with the victims until now.

However, due to the instant traffic accident, the Defendant appears to have suffered a considerable injury, the degree of injury suffered by the driver of the damaged vehicle is relatively heavy, and the Defendant reported the request for emergency medical services by the driver of the damaged vehicle before leaving the site, and taking the attitude of recognizing and reflecting the Defendant’s mistake, and the Defendant has no special criminal history other than punishment of punishment three times as a fine for the crime of larceny in 1999 after he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of larceny in 199, etc., shall be taken into account in favor of the Defendant.

When considering the above circumstances and other circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence sentenced by the court below is within the scope of the adequate sentencing discretion.

The decision is judged.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.