The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is not that of the defendant's breach of duty of care, but that of the damaged vehicle's negligence.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the accident of this case has suffered an injury that can be recognized as an injury under the Criminal Act, and the defendant does not leave the scene with full knowledge that the victim sustained an injury at the time of committing the crime, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had

Nevertheless, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

In addition, in light of the overall circumstances of this case, the punishment of the court below (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant caused the instant accident by failing to perform his/her duty of care in the course of entering the car line where the damaged vehicle is being driven by driving a sea-going vehicle, and the victim was injured by the climatic salt in need of approximately two weeks of treatment due to the instant accident, and even though the Defendant did not take any measures such as aiding the victim and leaving the scene, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is recognized as the primary offender without any criminal power, considering the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, and other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, and the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant arguments and records, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the defendant.