A. Due to the occurrence of an accident in the instant case of mistake of facts, the victims did not have been injured to the extent that it is necessary to take relief measures. The Defendant confirmed the state of the victims immediately after the accident, and went ahead of the hospital by burning the victims, but the victims were fine, leaving the hospital, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to escape.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”)

Article 5-3(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc.” refers to the case where the driver of an accident does not take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act despite the victim’s awareness of the occurrence of an accident and brings about a situation where it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident by leaving the place where the accident occurred.” Thus, “measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act” includes the case where the victim or the police officer, etc., who is related to the traffic accident, expresses the identity of the driver of the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5748, Mar. 25, 2003; 2005Do8264, Jan. 26, 2006). In addition, the court below duly adopted the victim’s statement at the trial court and the evidence duly adopted by the victim, the victim’s appeal against G.