The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant was only a cell phone and wallets immediately after the instant traffic accident, and did not escape from the scene of the accident.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, 1) In light of the above legal principles, 200Do2563, Jan. 5, 2001; 200Do373, Sept. 5, 2003; 2003Do3773, Sept. 5, 2003; 200Do3773, Sept. 5, 2003, when the driver of the accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the damaged person to rescue the injured person, despite the driver's awareness of the fact that the injured person was killed due to the accident, it means that the driver of the accident was absent from the scene before he or she performed his or her duties under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, and immediately after the driver's oral statement was duly adopted by the court below, the defendant, who did not directly contact the injured person or the victim's contact with the victim.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant is the driver of the escape vehicle and the intention of the escape is also recognized.

In addition, the defendant is involved in the traffic accident of this case as above.