All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In light of the fact-misunderstanding, the degree of injury suffered by misunderstanding the legal doctrine, and the fact that the victim was aware of the personal information of the Defendant, there was a need to rescue the victim at the time of the instant crime, or there was an intentional escape of the Defendant.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found all of the facts charged of this case guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine was 1). The lower court found the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion that it was difficult to regard the victim’s injury as an injury under the Criminal Act, and there was no need to take relief measures at the time, and that the Defendant did not have an intention to flee for the following reasons

A) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court as to whether the injured party was injured by the victim, the fact that the victim was injured by the instant traffic accident can be recognized.

(1) At the time, there seems to be a lot of accidents, such as the spread of the victim vehicle due to the collision and the fall of the front number plate of the Defendant vehicle.

In consideration of such conflict situation, although there was no injury to the victim, there was no injury.

Even if there is a high possibility that victims suffered injuries due to shock.

(2) After the accident, the victim was diagnosed to the effect that X-ray was exposed to the hospital and was hospitalized after the accident, and that the victim received outpatient treatment and received approximately two weeks of treatment from the doctor.

The victim did not interfere with daily life in the court.

“The lower court stated that the Plaintiff was “.......”