The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Erroring facts, the Defendant lost the ability to take relief measures against the victim, and led the victim to leave the scene of the accident by the F, and the Defendant has no intention to escape.

② The phrase “H” is indicated on the outside of the truck driven by the Defendant. After the accident, the Defendant informed the female employee of H of the occurrence of the traffic accident, G informed the victim’s name and handphone number to the person who is the president of the victim at the time of the accident. Since G was sufficiently taking relief measures against the victim in the vicinity of the traffic accident site of this case, the Defendant’s relief measures was completed prior to leaving the accident site.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1 on the assertion of mistake of fact cannot be deemed to have deserted the scene of accident since the defendant was sent to the hospital in the situation of loss of consciousness due to shock that was received at the time of the accident. Since the defendant notified the fact of accident to the members of the workplace where the defendant works after the accident, and let them rescue the victim, the defendant is not guilty of escape.

"When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under the provisions of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc." under the provisions of Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means a situation in which it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident because the driver of the accident escaped from the accident site before performing his/her duty under the provisions of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, although he/she