A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts is between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 with the consent of the victim, and the Defendant did not intend to flee, since he was towed to G’s office, which is the outside third village of Defendant in the neighboring wife. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service order, 80 hours of order, and 40 hours of order to attend a lecture)

B. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of order to attend a lecture) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts refers to the case where “when the driver of an accident runs away without taking the measures under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim,” under Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do375, May 12, 1998; 99Do2869, Dec. 7, 1999). The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do375, May 12, 1998; 9Do2869, Dec. 7, 199) is established when the driver of an accident was aware of the fact that the victim was killed and injured, and this includes not only the conclusive intention but also the willful intention.

As a subjective element of the constituent element of a crime, dolusent intention refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of a crime is uncertain and it is acceptable. In order to have dolusent intention, not only the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of a crime but also the internal intent to allow the risk of occurrence of a crime, and the offender permits the possibility of occurrence of a crime.