The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding the Defendant did not think that his vehicle was shocked by a fire from the central separation zone, but did not think that he was faced with an Obama and Oba. Therefore, the Defendant did not have an intention to flee.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The phrase "when the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as aiding the victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," means a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed because the driver escaped from the accident site prior to performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although the driver knew of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident. Here, the degree of awareness of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident does not necessarily need to be confirmed, and it is sufficient if the driver knew of the fact that the accident was directly confirmed at the vehicle immediately after the accident, but even if the driver was aware that it was not a separate accident site without taking such measures, he/she could have known about the occurrence of the accident at the time of the accident, considering the circumstances surrounding the accident and the legal principles of the accident at the time of the accident.