The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not escape from the scene without taking measures, such as aiding the victims, since he or she had committed the act of the police at the time of the instant case, because he or she did not receive a telephone, or did not deny driving.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, the observation of protection, community service 120 hours, the lecture of compliance driving 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant escaped from the site without taking measures, such as aiding the victims, is recognized.

① According to CCTV installed at the place of separation and removal of garbage near the instant site, the Defendant entered the place of removal and removal of garbage around May 3, 2015, immediately after the instant case, and moved into the apartment complex after leaving the place of separation and removal around 00:45 and moving into the apartment complex. The police officer searched the Defendant in the separate collection place around 00:450, but did not find it. As such, the Defendant appears to have escaped from the site of the accident to the place of removal and removal of garbage, which was concealed by the police officer in the separate collection place.

② According to the report on internal investigation, the police officer called up at the time of the instant accident made several calls on several occasions with the contact address of the Defendant attached to the vehicle involved in the accident, but the Defendant was either in telephone or not received, and the police officer found the Defendant within the apartment complex and confirmed whether the Defendant was driving of the vehicle involved in the accident.

They seem to have denied.

B. The conditions of sentencing do not change compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing is discretionary.