The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding (i.e., the Defendant reported the victim’s bicycle and stopped, and the victim was faced with the Defendant’s Otoba, so the accident is not caused by the Defendant’s negligence.

Sheshe did not escape because it was not necessary to take relief measures, such as Dod victim's absence of any other external wounds.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 3,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant brought about the delivery part between the E station and the road to go ahead of the road from the E station, and the victim who took a bicycle to the E station according to the delivery to the E station was found to have faced with the front wheels of the victim's bicycle without discovering the defendant, stopping, or avoiding it. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant violated the duty to safely proceed by examining the career room and the left and left side of the E station.

Meanwhile, “the time when the driver runs away without taking measures as prescribed in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim,” as stated in Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty as prescribed in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim, even though he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed and injured, and brings about a situation in which it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident. In determining whether the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of the accident before he/she performs the above duty, the details and contents of