A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The Defendant did not commit a central line.

2) The Defendant did not escape because there was an inevitable circumstance to allow the Defendant to move the vehicle immediately after the occurrence of the accident.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (7 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact 1) is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court, i.e., the following circumstances: (i) the vehicle was used in the normal driving lane of the vehicle driven by the victim (see, e.g., the 11th page of the investigation record); (ii) the vehicle of the defendant and the vehicle driven by the victim have also been scattered on the lane in which the vehicle driven by the five-way (see, e.g., the 13th page and the 14th page of the investigation record); (iii) the CCTV also runs along the center line (see, e.g., the 17th page of the investigation record); and (iv) The comprehensive traffic accident analysis letter also states that “the vehicle driven by the defendant might have been located beyond the center line (see, e.g., the 87th page of the investigation record); and (v) the defendant was sufficiently recognized in light of the fact that the center line was invaded by the defendant (see, 14th page of the trial record).

2) The Defendant invoked the Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3441 Decided September 28, 2006, arguing that “The Defendant did not want to stop and depart from the scene in a safe place, but did not want to flee.”

On the other hand, the above Supreme Court's decision is about a case where it is difficult to find a safe parking space that does not pose a danger to a subsequent accident, and in this case, it can be seen that there is sufficient space for safe parking of vehicles around the scene of the accident, as shown below.

Therefore, it is true.