The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant of mistake of facts is only the victim of the traffic accident in this case, but is not the perpetrator, and even if the defendant caused an accident, he is only a continuous driving without knowing the occurrence of the accident, and it does not escape. Thus, the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (5 million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted by this court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the Defendant was driving alcohol at the time of the accident, the victim’s vehicle was dried at the time of the accident, and the Defendant attempted to avoid the victim’s vehicle without stopping or lowering speed even though she viewed the victim’s vehicle at the time of the accident, and the part behind the victim’s truck was shocked by the victim’s vehicle, it is recognized that the instant accident was caused by negligence as a result of neglecting the Defendant’s duty of care (it does not interfere with the recognition of the Defendant’s negligence even if it is partially recognized that the Defendant was negligent in failing to fulfill his/her duty of care at the time of the accident). Furthermore, considering that the instant accident caused by the victim’s truck, the Defendant’s vehicle was destroyed by the right part of the truck, and the Defendant’s vehicle was considerably damaged, and the Defendant’s appeal without any justifiable reason for mistake of facts, it is sufficiently acceptable to acknowledge the Defendant’s charges.