The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the instant accident, which was a minor contact accident, was operated by a knife, did not recognize the fact of the accident at the time, and does not intentionally escape from the scene.

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake, the term "when the driver of the accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the damaged person" under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to the case where the driver of the accident runs away from the scene before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person although he/she was aware of the fact that the injured person was killed due to the accident, resulting in a situation where it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident as to whether the injured person was the person who caused the accident, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do375, May 12, 1998; 9Do2869, Dec. 7, 1999). The degree of awareness about the fact that the injured person was killed due to the accident, even if not necessarily required, if the driver had been aware of the accident and could not have been aware of it immediately after the accident.

I see, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do375, May 12, 1998; 99Do5023, Mar. 28, 2000). The defendant recognizes the act that constitutes the element of a crime, provided that the defendant recognizes it.