The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, parking the victim for parking a vehicle.

In other words, the defendant did not have the intention of escape since he was out of the scene.

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

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and its determination in detail at the end of the “a summary of evidence” of the judgment.

In addition to the circumstances revealed by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, namely, ① the degree of damage to the vehicle at the time of the accident (17th page of the evidence record), the degree of injury to the victim (13,84th page of the evidence record), and the situation at the time of the accident, it is evident that the defendant was in need of emergency relief measures against the victim. While recognizing the accident, the defendant does not take emergency relief and identification measures as provided by Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act but deserts the scene, and ② when the defendant returned about about about 15 minutes after the accident, the police was sent to the scene by N, the victim was sent to the emergency room, and the victim was sent to the emergency room (22,78 side of the evidence record). It is sufficiently recognized that the criminal defendant committed an escape.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. Determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is based on the fact that the defendant was responsible after the instant crime and returned to the site, and is covered by the automobile comprehensive insurance, and the victim by agreement with the victim.