The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant did not alter the construction machinery registration certificate, etc. as to the fraudulent, altered, or altered official document.

(2) As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (or the injury) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (or the measures not taken after the accident), the Defendant did not have any intention to flee since he did not fully recognize the occurrence of a traffic accident on two occasions.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, so it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Punishments sentenced by the court below which are unfair in sentencing

1. to 3. Crimes committed each of the crimes listed above: Imprisonment for not less than eight months; and

4. and 5. The imprisonment of 8 months for each offence is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s alteration of a construction machinery registration certificate, etc. and submitted it to the victim as a non-life insurance, thereby acquiring the amount of the terminated insurance premium from the above victim.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(2) As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (domination), the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant received the left-hand side part of the victim V drivers, who was at the stop of the intersection, from the Defendant to the right-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle. At the time of the accident, the Defendant also recognized that the said two vehicles had contacted, and the victim also flife the vehicle in the investigative agency.