A. Since the Defendant did not recognize the fact that the Defendant committed a crime against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes [the part concerning the crime committed even though the Defendant was guilty] at the time of the accident as stated in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant accident”), it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had a criminal intent to escape, since he did not recognize the fact that he committed a crime against the Defendant’s truck

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When a driver of an accident runs away without taking a measure under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim,” the term “the driver of an accident does not take a measure under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act despite the victim’s awareness of the fact that he was killed due to an accident,” and refers to a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed. Here, the degree of perception of the fact that the victim was killed is insufficient to determine the degree of perception of the fact that the accident occurred due to an accident. If the driver of an accident escaped from the accident site without taking such a measure even though he was able to confirm the fact that the accident would have been easily confirmed immediately after the accident, the driver of the accident would have known of the occurrence of the accident even if the accident did not take such a measure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do5023, Mar. 28, 2000).