A. Since there was no misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that caused damage to a victim by a vehicle, the Defendant did not incur injury to the victim.

Even if the defendant's vehicle shocks the victim, the injury suffered by the victim is extremely minor to the extent that it can not be evaluated as the damage under the criminal law and natural healing is possible, so the defendant did not have the necessity of relief measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of fact (1) The victim G made a statement in the court of the court below that the defendant's vehicle and the victim's left-hand side met even if the victim met. The victim's statement appears to have no reason to make a false statement to be disadvantageous to the defendant in a situation where the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant due to the agreement between the defendant and the victim at the investigation stage. Thus, the above statement is credibility.

In light of the overall testimony of the victim, the injury suffered by the victim seems to be caused by the tension between the Defendant’s vehicle and the Defendant’s scambling and playing in the process of being urgently avoided the injury. However, even if the Defendant did not feel scam the victim’s body with his own vehicle, and was aware of the said accident as the so-called unscambing accident.

Even if there was no obligation to take relief measures against the defendant immediately or there was no intention to commit the escape.

It shall not be readily concluded.

(2) The lower court duly adopted and investigated whether the injury suffered by the victim could be assessed as an injury under the Criminal Act.