A. After the accident, the Defendant: (a) misleads the victimized person to have driven the vehicle as it is; and (b) the accident occurred due to excessive operation of the damaged vehicle.

In light of the fact that the Defendant did not have any intention to commit an escape in light of the fact that he thought that he was the victim, and that the Defendant was subscribed to a motor vehicle comprehensive insurance, so there is no reason to escape, and that the Defendant did not have any traffic accident or any traffic laws and regulations prior to the instant case.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of four million won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court stated to the effect that: (a) the Defendant was aware of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of the fact; (b) the Defendant stated to the effect that the damaged vehicle immediately after the accident took place in the future as a big distance; (c) in light of the type of operation of the damaged vehicle, it appears that the driver was fully aware of the fact that the damaged vehicle could have suffered injuries; and (d) the Prosecutor stated to the effect that “the damaged vehicle driver or the passenger was thought to have undergone a serious contact with the damaged vehicle due to a serious contact accident occurred; and (b) the Defendant stated to the effect that: (a) the victim parked at a place less than 15 meters away from the accident site after the accident and returned to the scene of the accident; (b) according to the black image of the damaged vehicle, the victim aboard the damaged vehicle was cut to the direction of the Defendant’s escape; and (c) the Defendant did not return to the place where the accident occurred; and (d) even if the Defendant took place CCTV near the scene immediately after the accident site.