All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The place where a traffic accident occurred on December 10, 2012 due to mistake of facts is one-lane road, where there is almost no pedestrian after sunset, and where there is no streetlight, and the above traffic accident was completely set up at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident. The victim was placed in the center of the road by putting the clothes of the test color on the upper and lower level, and there is little pedestrian for the defendant, and there is no duty of care for the defendant to drive the vehicle even when the person is on the road at the center of the road. In particular, in light of the fact that the defendant made a telephone call prior to the occurrence of the above traffic accident, but the defendant completed the telephone call prior to the occurrence of the traffic accident, and H that passed through the accident point prior to the defendant's vehicle stated the victim by pling and pling the hand, it cannot be acknowledged that the defendant violated the duty of care for the defendant by getting the victim driven by the preceding vehicle.

B. The prosecutor did not take relief measures in the above traffic accident, and went away from the scene while serving as witness. It is sufficient to recognize that the defendant had a criminal intent to commit an escape.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s breach of duty of care, namely, the fact that the Defendant appeared to have an object on the road, but was stated at the police as they were in progress (Evidence No. 527 pages), ② the Defendant stated at the police that he went beyond the scope of the object while making telephone conversations (Evidence No. 528 pages), ③ He passed the Defendant’s vehicle prior to the accident point.