A. In light of the circumstances surrounding the instant accident, such as the misunderstanding of facts and the degree of minor injury by the misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant was in need of taking measures to rescue the victim at the time of the instant accident.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant is not guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (7 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant has the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion and its decision.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely after comparison with the records, there was no fact that the victim expressed that relief measures need not be taken against the defendant at the time of the accident, and there was no need to take other emergency measures objectively and clearly.

Therefore, the defendant who left the scene without taking any relief measures against the victim after the accident of this case is sufficiently recognized as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Epiking Vehicles).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's mistake and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. As the Defendant was driving a drinking alcohol to cause the instant traffic accident, and left the scene without taking any measures for the victim’s relief, it is necessary to punish the Defendant accordingly.

In addition, considering all other circumstances such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.