A. In the event of a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the victim was absent from the scene of the accident so that the defendant could not confirm the fact of damage, and thus the defendant could not take relief measures accordingly.

In addition, considering the circumstances after the accident, it was necessary for the defendant to take measures such as aiding the victim.

is not recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is determined that the Defendant, despite having been able to take any action, did not recognize the fact of the accident, and did not take any action against the Defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) The defendant asserts that the victim was unable to rescue the victim by leaving the scene immediately after the accident.

However, the victim consistently observed from the investigative agency to the court of the court below with regard to the circumstances of the movement from the scene of the accident, and immediately after the accident, the victim observed that the sea vehicle runs away from the scene of the accident, and immediately after the accident, the ice vehicle runs away from the scene of the accident to the alleyway, and the ice vehicle stopped in the direction of the previous course in order to see the ice vehicle by walking on the ice, and returned to the scene of the accident two times after two times to the scene of the accident, but the ice vehicle had already escaped.

Since these statements are made, there are no circumstances to suspect the credibility of these statements consistent and different.

B. A. H.D.