A. After the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant left about 100 meters after the occurrence of the instant accident, and stopped on the roadside and left about 5 minutes a clerical error in the victim’s vehicle. However, the Defendant did not escape from the point of view that the accident was insignificant and the victim was not aware of it.

In addition, there was no need to take relief measures because the injury of victims is not an injury to the extent that they should receive treatment by sending them back to the hospital.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts as to the assertion that it was not an escape, refers to the case where the driver of an accident who escaped from the accident site before performing the duty provided in Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim although the driver knew of the fact that the victim was killed and injured, resulting in an unfasible situation where the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do375, May 12, 1998; 9Do2869, Dec. 7, 1999). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant did not immediately change the damaged part of the vehicle from the road to the point where the damaged vehicle was destroyed to the point where the damaged vehicle was parked to the point where the damaged vehicle was destroyed to the point where the damaged vehicle was destroyed to the point where the damaged vehicle was destroyed to the point where the damaged vehicle was destroyed to the point where the damaged vehicle was repaired to the point of 10 driver.