Rather, in light of the fact that the Defendant is highly likely to drive the instant vehicle while avoiding the victim, the vehicle other than the instant vehicle has driven along the road where the accident occurred, and the vehicle of this case does not have a sufficient trace of the victim, such as the victim's blood trace, etc. on the instant vehicle, and that the appraisal request table (Evidence No. 34, 48) does not guarantee the identity or artificial manipulation, damage, or addition of samples, but does not have sufficient probative value because the records confirming the procedure for accurate takeover and transfer are not maintained at each stage of the analysis, etc., the possibility that the victim might have suffered an accident by another vehicle travelling along the opposite line of the instant vehicle cannot be ruled out.

Even if the instant vehicle had shocked the victim, in light of the fact that the instant vehicle did not stop for about 14 seconds near the scene of the accident, immediately after the instant vehicle passed through the scene of the accident, that another vehicle passed through immediately after the accident site, that the Defendant reported to 112, and that there was no shock trace on the instant vehicle, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to escape.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

2. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, it is recognized that the vehicle of this case escaped without taking measures, such as aiding the victim, even if the victim was received.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

1. The instant vehicle: