A. In light of the misunderstanding of facts (as to the acquittal portion of reasons), the Defendant’s statement was reversed, and there was no credibility, and the victim did not take any relief measures until the Defendant was found to have been found, there was a criminal intent of the Defendant to escape.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of probation, 40 hours of community service order, 40 hours of order to attend a compliance driving lecture) of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court determined that, on the grounds of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, even though it appears that the Defendant stopped and did not immediately find the victim after the stop, and thus, the Defendant was unable to immediately stop at the time of the accident, considering the circumstances of the accident, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant went to cross-section with the intention of escape. As a result, the lower court determined that the Defendant was acquitted of the fact that the Defendant was killed in the line of duty after his/her occupational negligence and that the Defendant did not take measures after his/her accident was not found.

In light of the following circumstances and circumstances cited by the court below as the grounds for not guilty, and the court below's decision that found the defendant not guilty is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor, and thus, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.

① The Defendant, while shocking the victim’s vehicle and driving at a speed, in violation of the red signal of the intersection. However, on the other hand, the Defendant directed the right direction at the same time with shock, and runs away from the intersection.