beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Compared to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not have any intention to flee because he was unable to recognize the occurrence of a traffic accident. 2) There was no injury inflicted by the victim, or there was no need to take relief measures because it was not sufficient to receive hospital treatment even
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, 40 hours of the law-abiding class lecture, 120 hours of the community service order) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion that the defendant had no intention to flee due to the failure to recognize the occurrence of a traffic accident was duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the following facts acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the police witness investigation, that "F was contacted by the defendant at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident by the witness investigation, and stated that "A (the defendant) was at the time of the accident that "I was able to hear the sounds of the bread during the middle line to make a left-hand turn from the medical driving distance at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, so I would not know whether I would go beyond the central line because I would go beyond the central line (section 13 of the investigation record)," and accordingly, the defendant asked F to put the situation to the scene of the accident at the scene of the accident at issue and directly confirmed the situation of F.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case did not err by mistake of facts.
B. The assertion that there was no need to take relief measures because there was no injury suffered by the victim or because it was not sufficient to receive hospital treatment even if the victim suffered injury.