The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, was shaking a vehicle at the time of the instant accident, but was aware that the same on the road side was a pipe, but did not recognize the accident, but did not recognize that the damaged vehicle stopped the Defendant’s vehicle to the right side while finding out that the damaged vehicle was on emergency, etc., and caused the insurance management for the damaged vehicle. The instant accident was a minor collision and was covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and thus, there was no reason to escape if the Defendant was aware of the accident, taking into account the fact that there was no reason to escape.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., that the injured person stated in the police that “the injured person would have sufficiently known the fact of the Defendant’s humanitarian accident by scambling the vehicle,” and that the circumstance and place of the Defendant’s stop by tracking the victim, the situation and place of the Defendant’s stop, and the part of the Defendant’s contact with the damaged vehicle in light of the fact that it appears that the Defendant’s intentional escape at the time of the instant case could have been found.

Based on the judgment, the charged facts of this case were pronounced guilty.

2) According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence, the court below's judgment that the defendant had a criminal intent to escape at the time of the instant case is just and there is such a defendant's assertion.