All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 피고인의 항소이유 1) 사실오인 및 법리오해 피고인은 이 사건 교통사고 장소를 진행하던 중 뒤쪽에서 ‘쿵’하는 소리가 들려 차를 멈추고 내려보니 피해자가 운전하던 승용차가 경계석을 충격하고 정차되어 있었고, 피고인의 차량에서 피해자의 승용차와 충돌한 흔적을 확인할 수 없어 잠시 피해자와 대화를 나눈 뒤 약속장소로 이동하였을 뿐, 당시 자신이 피해자에게 발생한 교통사고를 야기한 사실을 전혀 인식하지 못하고 있었으므로 피고인에게 도주의 의사가 인정될 수 없다. 그럼에도 피고인에게 유죄를 인정한 원심의 판단에는 사실오인 및 법리오해의 위법이 있다. 2) 양형부당 원심이 선고한 형(벌금 700만 원)은 너무 무거워서 부당하다.

B. The above sentence imposed by the court below in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc.” refers to the case where the driver of an accident leaves the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, although he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, resulting in a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed.

In this context, the degree of perception of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident is not necessarily required to be confirmed, but it is sufficient to recognize even if it is dolusent. On the other hand, if the victim was aware that he was aware of having caused the accident, and left the scene of the accident.