The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of the fact, the Defendant was suffering from chills with abnormal hearing ability, resulting in a very serious engine noise and vibration on the part of the Defendant’s drivers, and the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant case did not recognize that the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the damaged vehicle.

Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant had no criminal intent to escape. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a term of six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or legal doctrine and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, (i) according to the black stuff image containing the surface of the instant accident, it is confirmed that the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle would reduce the speed by following a sudden broke immediately after the collision of the damaged vehicle; (ii) the damaged vehicle proceeding on a three-lane, while continuing to stop immediately after being shocked on the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle; (iii) the damaged vehicle stopped on the right side of the vehicle and stopped over 4,5 lanes; and (iv) the time from the time the damaged vehicle stopped to stop on the right side of the vehicle; and (v) the accident occurred on the road at the lower straight line; and (v) the Defendant’s vehicle was relatively driving immediately after the collision, and thus, the Defendant was sufficiently aware that the emergency vehicle was making a stop.

Even though it is reasonable to view it as it is, the victim F is dnicking (the victim F is dnicking while a vehicle stops in front of the defendant in the original instance.

Therefore, it is possible to get off the vehicle with the knowledge of the fact that the defendant caused the accident.