The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant: (a) reported an accident by phoneing to an insurance company immediately after the accident; (b) the Defendant, after having arrived at the police station, went to a convenience store 150 meters away from the scene of the accident; and (c) was returning to the scene; and (d) the Defendant was able to easily identify that the person who caused the instant accident was the Defendant.

Moreover, it cannot be said that there is no need to take measures to rescue victims or to prevent and eliminate traffic hazards and obstacles because the physical personal damage of victims is insignificant due to the accident.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Even if the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Egressing Vehicles) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (U.S.) is established against the defendant for an unfair sentencing, the sentencing of the lower court (two years of suspended execution in June and forty hours of the compliance driving instruction) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the defendant's assertion under the title "a judgment on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment of the court below with the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case. In light of the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles

Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Regarding the unfair argument of sentencing