The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not know at the time that the instant accident occurred due to negligence in the course of business, which caused the instant accident to the Defendant, and accordingly, left the scene of the accident without the awareness that the victim suffered bodily injury due to

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts refers to a case where a driver of a vehicle is negligent in performing his/her duty of care in driving and resulting in an injury of a victim who did not directly conflict with the vehicle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do866, Sept. 12, 1989). “When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim,” as provided in Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the term “when the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, even though he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident, and thus it brings about a situation in which it cannot be confirmed as the operator of the accident, such as aiding the victim, even though the driver of the accident knew of the fact that the victim was killed due to his/her duty of care in driving.