The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not fully recognize that the instant traffic accident was caused by the Defendant’s negligence, there was no criminal intent to escape, and the victim’s injury was caused by king evidence, and it was not caused by the instant accident.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criminal intent of escape.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 120 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the defendant's criminal intent to escape refers to the case where the driver of the accident runs away from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty provided for in Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, although the driver knew that the victim was killed due to the accident, and resulting in a situation that cannot be confirmed as the person who suffered the accident, such as aiding the victim, although he/she was aware of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident. Here, it is necessary for the driver to know that the accident was caused by his/her occupational negligence. However, the degree of recognition does not necessarily require a definite recognition, and it is sufficient for the driver to recognize the victim as the victim's negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do833, Jul. 11, 195). The court below duly adopted and investigated evidence, in particular, whether the defendant was found to have been injured by the driver of the accident, and the following two lanes are changed from the one lane to another one road.