The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the crime committed against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) the Defendant immediately stopped at the time of the instant accident and received an accident from an insurance company, and the victims have returned to the vehicle involved in the accident, making it unnecessary to take relief measures, and there was no intention of escape.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the term "when the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim as provided by Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" refers to the case where the driver of an accident runs away from the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, and brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do2869, Dec. 7, 199). The degree of awareness of the fact that the victim was killed or injured is not definitely confirmed, and if the driver of an accident knew that it was not a separate accident site without taking such measures, he/she can easily be seen as having been aware of the fact that the defendant had been aware of the occurrence of an accident, such as the subjective element of the accident.