The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not know of the occurrence of the accident in this case and did not intend to flee from the place where the accident in this case occurred, but the court below determined that the defendant constituted a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed measures after the accident). The judgment of the court below is erroneous

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a C options car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

Around 00:20 on January 8, 2013, the Defendant operated the said car prior to the Tobacco and Ginseng Corporation located in the Jeju-do Budget-Eup of the budget-Si, Chungcheongnam-do, and continued to proceed from the border of the budget to the reverse post office on the side of the budget zone.

At this point, since there is a one-lane road in which the center line of yellow-ray is installed, the defendant engaged in driving motor vehicles has a duty of care to observe and safely proceed with the vehicle line.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and caused the defendant to use it on the road to avoid the collision with the above car, E Cat 100 Oata, which was driven by the victim D(the age of 35) who was driving in the opposite direction.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injuries, such as chins, tensions, etc., which require medical treatment for about two weeks, and at the same time, the Defendant escaped without immediately stopping the victim while destroying the amount of the above damage to make it available for repair expenses.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was driving the victim at the time that he was frighting to the central line; (b) however, it recognized that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s invasion of the central line.