A. Since the defendant was unable to recognize the sufficient fact that he had committed a crime against the defendant's driver's car and left the scene, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case even though he did not have a criminal intent to escape, there is an error of mistake of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, "when a person runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as aiding the victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" and "when the driver of the accident does not take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act" mean the case where the driver of the accident does not recognize the fact that the victim was killed or injured due to the accident and the fact that the article was damaged, in spite of awareness of the fact that the victim was damaged, resulting in a situation where the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed because he escaped from the scene before performing the duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc. In this context, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the victim was killed and the degree

On the other hand, in the case of leaving from the accident site while recognizing that the person who caused the accident was aware of it, there is a dolusence in the absence of such a possibility.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13091 Decided April 28, 201). In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant is driving a vehicle on the backway, using a side road, using a passenger car to use a diversic acid, and going ahead to the direction of the Defendant’s driving.