The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were unaware of the victim's injury caused by the instant traffic accident, and requested follow-up measures through E, an acting driver, and so long as the victim refused to take relief measures, the defendant cannot be seen as escape from the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, even though he/she left the scene. Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending

B. The Defendant’s fine of KRW 6 million imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail with the Defendant’s assertion and its determination under the title of “judgment on the facts prosecuted”. In so doing, the lower court’s determination is sufficiently acceptable upon examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (1) the defendant made a statement that he left the scene of the accident without the victim's permission because the defendant was able to make a report to the police by the police (Evidence No. 39). (2) E did not request the defendant to take care of the accident from the court below, but did not take care of the victim to the hospital, and stated that the police officer dispatched the scene was simply talked about the circumstances of the case and went away from the scene (No. 85,86 of the trial record), and it is difficult to view that the relief measures against the victim was properly taken at the time.