The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant issued a name tag to the victim E

The victim was aware of the vehicle number of the defendant at the scene of the accident, and the victim was marked as a photograph.

The defendant shall have the victim E deducted the victim E from his vehicle.

After moving to the side and stopping the above victim, the victim did not have any error, but the victim knows the contact address and the vehicle number of the defendant, and later, the victim tried to contact later.

I think that there was no intention to escape from the field.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, while the lower court rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the judgment on the following grounds: “Judgment on the argument of the Defendant and the defense counsel” under the title of “judgment on the argument of the Defendant and the defense counsel.”

A thorough examination of the circumstances presented by the court below in accordance with the records and legal principles, the defendant left the scene of the accident prior to the performance of obligations provided for in Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding victims, even though the victims were aware of the fact that the victims were killed due to an accident.

As such, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

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

B. The fact that the victims did not have much weighted the degree of injury to the victims of the judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and that the victims did not want punishment against the defendant is favorable circumstances.

However, the defendant did not take measures such as aiding and abetting the victims of a traffic accident, and the defendant seems to have taken into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant in the original trial.