The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts: (a) The instant accident did not occur due to the Defendant’s negligence, which resulted from the Defendant’s negligence, by entering the roadway for the purpose of a guest act, extending to a part of the roadway; and (b) even if the Defendant was negligent, the Defendant did not have the awareness that the victim suffered injury at the time of the accident, and thus, cannot be deemed to have escaped without the intention of the criminal intent of the escape.

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

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

가. 원심의 판단 원심판결의 ‘유죄의 이유’ 란에서 설시한 바와 같이, ① 이 사건 교통사고 당시 피고인의 화물차 좌측 뒤에서 진행하던 G은 ‘사고 순간 피해자가 튕겨 나왔고 피고인의 차량도 휘청했다’라고 진술한 점, ② 더욱이 G은 이 사건 교통사고 직후 피고인의 화물차를 뒤쫓아 가서 위 화물차의 우측 사이드미러가 접혀 있는 것을 목격했다고 진술한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인은 사고 사실을 인식한 상태에서 현장을 이탈하였다고 인정된다.

B. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures as provided by Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim,” refers to cases where the driver of an accident, despite his knowledge of the fact that the victim was injured due to an accident, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty as provided by Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, causes unaccomparability of who caused the accident

In this context, the degree of perception of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident is not necessarily required to be confirmed, but it is sufficient to recognize even if it is dolusent, and on the other hand, there was a person who caused the accident.