A. The Defendant did not recognize the fact that the accident that shocked the victim’s vehicle itself, and there was no intention to commit an escape.

In addition, there is no proximate causal relationship between the defendant's driver's negligence and the accident in this case, since the defendant entered the intersection at the time of the instant case because the victim did not find the defendant's vehicle but did not reduce the speed.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby recognizing the Defendant’s criminal intent to flee, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, determined that the instant accident occurred by negligence of the Defendant.

B. Even if the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, the lower court’s sentencing (a fine of KRW 4 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the overall circumstances at the time of the instant case, namely, the shock of the Defendant’s vehicle and the victim’s vehicle and the strength of shock, etc., recognized by the evidence, such as black boxes and field photographs, in which the Defendant recognized the occurrence of the accident, the Defendant is bound to have sufficiently recognized the fact that the accident occurred.

B. When one vehicle intends to enter an intersection in which traffic control is not performed on a narrow road, where the breadth of the Defendant’s negligence, it shall first go through, and if there is any such vehicle, it shall yield the course to the said vehicle, and even if it is possible to enter the intersection first at time, it shall not take priority over the vehicle which intends to enter the intersection, but all vehicles which intend to enter the intersection where the traffic control is not performed, are already going through the said intersection from other roads.