The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant did not have the intention to commit an escape because he left the scene without recognizing the occurrence of an accident (as to the facts stated in paragraph (1) of this Article).

B. Determination of the lower court among the sentencing departments: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years

A. The phrase "the case where a driver of an accident runs away without taking such measures as provided by Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to determine the assertion of mistake of facts" refers to the case where the driver of an accident escaped from the accident site before performing his/her duty as provided by Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim although he/she was aware of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, and brings about a situation where it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident. The degree of awareness of the fact that the victim was killed or injured is not a conclusive but it is sufficient if the driver of the accident knew that he/she could easily confirm the fact of the accident if he/she was directly checked immediately after the accident, even though he/she did not take such measures, and if he/she left the accident site, he/she can be seen as having known the fact of the accident even if he/she

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do5023, Mar. 28, 2000). In addition, there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of evidence in the appellate court’s trial process, and the first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous.

The Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017, where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the reasoning leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., it should not be reversed without permission.