The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts constituting the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Egressing Vehicles) and the Road Traffic Act (the measures not taken after accidents) even though he/she did not recognize the occurrence of the first accident while driving a stroke, and did not intend to flee because he/she continuously caused the second accident while driving a stroke.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August, community service order, 80 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of compliance driving) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of fact, the Defendant could sufficiently be found to have escaped without taking any measures despite the recognition of the occurrence of the first accident.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant, and thus the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

1) The primary accident is the part on the left side (on the left side) of the motor vehicle in the motor vehicle in the motor vehicle where the Defendant was driving, and the loaded part and the right side of the motor vehicle driven by the victim G on two occasions. According to the photographic image of the damaged cargo vehicle, the intensity of the collision also seems to have been small.

In light of the parts, frequency, and degree of the above collision, even if the defendant was driving on the stroke

Even if the occurrence of the primary accident seems to have been fully recognized.

2) The Defendant India’s investigative agency stated that “A vehicle was unable to be deemed to have been driven prior to driving, and the occurrence of an accident was recognized.”

3) The Defendant is at an investigative agency.