The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With respect to the part of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (refusal measures after accidents), there was no accident that could cause damage even though the victim had a minor contact with the driver, and the defendant was unable to know the damage, but left the scene of the accident. However, the judgment of the court below which convicted all of the charges of this part of the facts charged on a different premise,

[Defendant’s defense counsel added an argument to the purport that this case’s accident is not an accident due to central intrusion while submitting a summary of oral argument at the third trial day of the trial where the period for submitting the appellate brief was in excess of the period for submitting the appellate brief, and that this case’s accident is not an accident due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. However, the document submitted after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief should be determined within the scope of supplement to the grounds for appeal submitted within the period for submitting the appellate brief, and otherwise, even if examining the records of this case including the summary of oral argument, it cannot be deemed that there is ex officio investigation, and no separate determination is made as to the allegation of mistake other

The punishment (fine 4 million won) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On May 11, 2012, the Defendant: (a) driven a car in the instant provisional sea (hereinafter referred to as “fluor”) around 14:40, and driven a road in front of the restaurant, which is located in 48, from the exit point of the southyang-si, to the direction of the cafeteria, the Defendant was driving the victim, who stopped on the side of the Defendant’s vehicle, driving the road on the side of the restaurant, which is located in 48, at the exit point of the exit point of the National Bank; and (b) driven the road on the side of the restaurant, which is located in order to enter the cafeteria, at an aesthetic speed beyond the median line; and (c) was driving the victim, who stopped on the rear of the Defendant’s vehicle, to enter the cafeteria.