All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles (not guilty part in the judgment of the court below), the defendant's direction and distance immediately after the occurrence of the accident as stated in this part of the facts charged, and the defendant's attitude, even if the defendant was unable to proceed more because of another vehicle and became final and conclusive as the driver of the accident, the defendant caused a net accident leaving the scene of the accident and caused an undetermined situation, and the defendant's intention to escape is also inferred.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the above facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone caused the accident of this case and caused an undetermined condition as a person who caused the accident of this case. In light of the circumstances of the court below, the defendant had a criminal intent to flee.

For the reasons that it is difficult to conclude this part of the facts charged, the conclusion of the lower court that acquitted is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor in the lower judgment.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. The following facts are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is against the crime; (b) the victim’s injury appears to be relatively low; (c) the vehicle of the Defendant was covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance; and (d) the Defendant has no specific criminal record.