The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The judgment below

The public prosecution shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the victim H and I (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the victim H and I), Defendant’s vehicle did not compromise the victim H and I, and even if so, shock

Even if the victims did not have been injured, and the victims suffered injury.

However, there was no criminal intent to escape from the scene of the accident even though the defendant was aware of the necessity of the relief measures, so it cannot be viewed as an injury to the extent that the relief measures are required.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one month imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the prosecutor’s (1) misunderstanding of the facts (as to the victim C and D’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the Victims) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, i.e., the Defendant perceived the victim C and D with the Defendant’s vehicle with dolusence, and it is reasonable to deem that the injury the victim suffered from the shock of the vehicle is an injury to the extent that the rescue measure is required, this part of the

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged, and dismissed each prosecution against the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents against C and D, which is related to the crime. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal on the part of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.