A. In misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the Defendant left the site after 119 report was filed, such as ascertaining the status of the victim at the site and exchanging opinions on witness and rescue, and the Defendant was the driver of the accident, and was well aware of the fact that he was the driver of the accident.

As a result, the defendant has fulfilled all the duty of relief and identification, and thus does not constitute escape.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle on the assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal principle refers to the case where the driver of the accident who escaped from the scene of the accident without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as aiding the damaged person, and without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, brings about a situation in which it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident," as stipulated in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, “the driver of the accident does not take measures, but leaves the scene of the accident to rescue the injured person despite the awareness of the fact that the injured person was killed, and thus, if the driver of the accident escaped from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person even though he/she knew of the fact that the injured person was killed, he/she provided the injured person with data by which his/her identity can be verified.

Even if a victim does not take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured party, and runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do250, Mar. 12, 2004; 2010Do160207, Mar. 10, 201).