A. The Defendant lost the ability to take the best relief measures on the ground that the Defendant was under treatment due to high blood pressure, cardiopulmonary boom, wind, and dystrophical symptoms, etc., and was under treatment due to the instant accident in a certain drinking condition, and was unable to take the best relief measures.

② immediately after the accident, the Defendant asked the driver of the vehicle following the accident to file a 119 report, and the victim left the scene of the accident and voluntarily filed a report to K, who is the head of the district team in the competent district, to treat the Defendant, is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was in charge of providing relief to the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the facts adopted by the lower court and the lower court and the evidence examined, the following facts can be acknowledged on the date of the accident (as of July 28, 2017).

20:27 Accidents 20:28 The phone call of the defendant 20:29 "O (P)" and 20:30 "The 112 Report (Evidence Record 19 pages) and the 119 Report to Q (R) by the defendant 20:33 "The 20:35 119 emergency call again to Q Q who is his/her seat at the site of the accident (the 83th page of the evidence record) and 20:36 "The 20:41 police call to Q where the defendant is his/her seat for 14 minutes, and the 20:41 "The 79th day of the evidence record)" calls the victim to Q who is his/her seat, and the 20:419 emergency call to Q who is his/her seat for 20:45 (P) from the site of the accident at the time of the victim's first 20:419 emergency call to Q:3 "The 2010th day of the disaster call of the defendant within the 2103rd.

(b) the above findings of recognition and the following circumstances.