A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not have a driving under the influence of alcohol, and the victims were not injured due to minor traffic accidents in this case, and necessary measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act were not required, and even if necessary to take such measures, the defendant did not escape without taking the above measures.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below that recognized the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicle) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Non-accidenting Measures) is erroneous in the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the part that recognized

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution in October, and three hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, whether the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles and factual errors) has been established (the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles) and the following circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, due to the instant traffic accident caused by the Defendant, failed to perform all necessary measures

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and violation of the Road Traffic Act (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts

1. At the time of the instant traffic accident, the impact of the Defendant and the victim’s vehicle was unflicked to the extent that the flicker was flicked in front of the right edge of the Defendant’s vehicle, and that the flicker was flicked in the back