The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the victims suffered minor injuries due to the occurrence of the instant accident, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not established. ② The Defendant, in light of the circumstances of the instant accident, did not think that the victims were not injured and left the scene without recognizing that they were not injured in light of the situation of the instant accident. ③ The victims after the instant accident did not have to help them by themselves go from the damaged vehicle and evacuate from the damaged vehicle, so it is not necessary to take emergency measures such as relief for victims. Thus, even if the Defendant escaped from the scene of the accident, the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not established. ④ Even if the Defendant escaped from the scene of the accident, the Defendant was thought to process the instant accident in order to conceal the police officer's status exposure and drunk driving, and there was no intention to escape from the scene with the Defendant's Hand phone number and the damaged vehicle without recognizing that they were injured, and there is no violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the assertion of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The phrase “when a person runs away without taking measures as provided in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim,” as provided in Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.