The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not think at the time that he did not think that he did not think that he had been aware of the collision with the tree stoves due to the very wind at the time, and that he did not go to the house, and later, he was placed in the house on the front of the next house, and he was placed in the headal stove in the front of the next house.

Since the defendant was thought, there was no intention to escape.

Even so, the court below held that the defendant has the intention to flee.

The judgment of the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Fact-finding assertion 1) "When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the damaged person" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, although he/she knows that the injured person was killed or injured, resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident, as the person who caused the accident, in spite of his/her awareness of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured. The degree of awareness of the fact that the injured person caused the accident is killed or injured, is sufficiently sufficient if the driver of the accident knew even if he/she could have easily confirmed the accident if he/she was directly checked immediately after the accident, but even if he/she did not take such measures, and if he/she left the scene, the driver of the accident knew that the accident had known the intention to escape even if.

It can be seen (Supreme Court Decision 99Do5023 delivered on March 28, 200).