A. After the occurrence of an accident, the Defendant was unable to recognize the fact that the victim was posted a chief door to the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of leaving the scene.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When the driver of an accident runs away without taking the measures as provided by Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc.” refers to the case where the driver of an accident leaves the accident site prior to performing his/her duties as provided by Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, although he/she was aware of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, resulting in a situation in which the identity

In this context, the degree of perception of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident is not necessarily required to be confirmed, and even if it is dolusent, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the victim was killed, and if he was aware of the fact that the victim was fully aware of the occurrence of the accident, there is a dolusent perception from the accident site.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13091 Decided April 28, 201, etc.). In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the circumstances that can be known or inferred therefrom, the Defendant can be sufficiently recognized that, at the time of leaving the scene after the occurrence of the accident, the victim was given a chief door to the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of his/her escape.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is justified.