The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding or legal principles of the defendant, immediately after the traffic accident in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter "accident in this case"), the defendant was aware that the victim was the perpetrator of the accident in this case, by making phone calls to the insurance company and informing the insurance company of the details of the accident, etc. The victim was directly connected with the victim, and the degree of damage was relatively minor, and the police officer who investigated the accident in this case was issued the defendant's phone number from the employee of the insurance company dispatched, the defendant clearly identified his identity at the time of the accident in this case, and could be seen as having taken relief measures necessary for the situation at the time.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 160 hours of community service order, 40 hours of lecture order for compliance driving, 40 hours of protection observation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle on factual mistake or misapprehension of the legal principle refers to the case where the driver of the accident runs away from the scene of the accident before performing his duty under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the damaged person, and without taking measures under Article 50(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, despite the awareness of the fact that the injured person was injured by the accident, such as aiding the injured person, etc., and resulting in a situation where it is impossible to determine who caused the accident as to who caused the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do2563, Jan. 5, 201, etc.).