A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even if it was sufficiently convicted of the Defendant of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the measures subsequent to the accident).

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court were as follows: (a) (i) the degree of scattering of the damaged vehicle was not reduced due to the instant accident; (b) the fluor who was accompanied by the Defendant and the Defendant’s vehicle confirmed the condition of the injured party after the instant accident; (c) the victim’s children were exposed to contact with the injured party; (d) the Defendant did not notify the victimized children of contact or personal information; (d) the Defendant escaped on the part of the injured party without the victim’s consent; and (e) the Defendant did not actively control the injured party upon leaving the Defendant’s site; and (e) the Defendant did not have any need to take measures to ensure smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic hazards and obstacles.”

B. For the following reasons, this part of the facts charged is proven guilty. Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous or erroneous.