The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the fact-finding, the Defendant requested the victims to talk immediately after the accident, confirmed the victims' state, confirmed the victims' credit, and clearly known, the Defendant’s arrival of towing vehicles and the victims before leaving the accident site, the Defendant did not interfere with the risk of the accident at the time of leaving the accident site, the Defendant’s vehicle was towed, and the Defendant’s identity was able to be confirmed immediately with the towed vehicle, the Defendant was an intention to attend the police station prior to the accident, and the Defendant was able to voluntarily attend the police station and voluntarily attend the accident and recognized the fact of the accident.

It shall not be readily concluded.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 40 hours of each order to provide community service and to attend a law-abiding lecture) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The phrase "when the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person" as provided by Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means the case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person although he/she was aware of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do2204, Oct. 21, 1994; 96Do252, Apr. 9, 196; 96Do1415, Aug. 20, 196; 206Do407, Dec. 6, 1996).