A. The Defendant alleged misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not recognize that he had shocked a person at the time of the instant accident, and that a traffic accident occurred by calls to the police station immediately after the instant accident.

Since one's identity was expressed while reporting, the defendant does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death or Injury caused by Escape).

B. The lower court’s punishment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, namely, ① the hedging of the Defendant’s vehicle, the front offender, Bods, and front glass was severely damaged due to the instant accident; ② the Defendant reported to the police station immediately after the instant accident, to the effect that the traffic accident occurred by calls to the police station, etc., the Defendant did not have any negligence on the part of the Defendant at the time of the instant accident.

full recognition may be accepted.

In addition, the defendant call to the police station immediately after the accident of this case and the traffic accident occurred.

It is deemed that his identity was indicated in the report.

Even if the defendant immediately stops and does not take necessary measures such as aiding the injured party, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established against the defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The fact that the defendant did not have any history of punishment for traffic-related crimes, the vehicle of the defendant is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and that the defendant agreed with the victim's bereaved family members smoothly is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case does not take measures, such as rescue, even though the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and does not escape, and the victim dies.