The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (a.e., the fact that the Defendant was a party to the insurance company, and notified the fact of the accident to the insurance company, requested the management of the accident, and the said insurance company’s employee was dispatched to the site for the management of the accident, and thus,

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, who was in a critical state due to the instant accident, calls with the executive officers of the company in order to manage the accident, and received the report of an insurance company as seen earlier; (b) there is sufficient probability that the Defendant continued alleyway despite the name of the police officer who was concentrated on continuous telephone communications; (c) the Defendant appears to be clearly identified as the driver of the accident; (iv) the Defendant appears to be a matter that is anticipated to clearly indicate the fact that the Defendant was the driver of the accident; and (v) even though the Defendant was not a driver at the scene, he was immediately corrected the accident at the site and recognized that he was the driver, and actively cooperated in the investigation

It shall not be readily concluded.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in October, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, and the defendant alleged not guilty of this part of the facts charged at the court below. However, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning and found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by taking into account the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.