The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not recognize the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the victim’s vehicle at the time of the instant case, and there was no intention of escape.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by erroneous determination that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실 오인 주장에 관하여 1) 원심의 판단 피고인은 원심에서도 이 부분 항소 이유와 같은 취지의 주장을 하였으나, 원심은 그 채택 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 사정, 즉 ① 이 사건 교통사고의 충격으로 피고인이 운행하던 차량의 차체가 흔들린 점, ② 이후 피고인은 그대로 진행하다가 비상등을 켠 채 도로 상에 잠시 정차하였으나 차량에서 내려 차체를 살피지는 아니하였던 점, ③ 피해자는 상당 시간 동안 피고인의 차량을 쫓아갔고 피고인이 위와 같이 정차한 때에도 피고인의 차량 바로 뒤에 정차하였으므로 피고인은 사고 사실을 확인하고 구호조치를 취할 수 있었던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인은 사고 사실을 미필적으로나마 인식하였음에도 도주하였다고

In light of the above, the defendant's assertion is rejected and the facts charged are convicted.

2) Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "a case where a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a damaged person," refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a injured person, although he/she was aware of the fact that the injured person was killed due to the accident, causing a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident as a person who was killed due to leaving the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty (Supreme Court Decision 204