The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The Defendant did not have driven a sea-going vehicle at the time of the instant traffic accident. The Defendant’s statements made by G and Q are not consistent and are not reliable. In the event of a traffic accident while the Defendant’s wife driven, the Defendant’s act of lowering the accident and managing the accident is not natural in light of social norms.

It is difficult to see it, and it is difficult to see the way of operation as an abnormal, and there is no reason to escape after a traffic accident, such as a driver insurance.

2) While I did not accompany the damaged vehicle at the time of the traffic accident, it is unclear whether I stated the personal information of I in the report of the occurrence of the traffic accident, and I was not immediately after the traffic accident even though I was a seated passenger, it is natural as well. Defendant as well as witness Q did not deem I immediately after the traffic accident in this case.

3) Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the defendant's reasons for appeal ex officio prior to the appeal.

Where the driver of a vehicle causes injury to a person by negligence in the course of his/her duty and also destroys things and absconds, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unnecessary measures after the accident) are related to the ordinary concurrent crimes corresponding to several crimes (Supreme Court Decision 93Do49 delivered on May 11, 1993). However, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Epiking Vehicles) and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the damage of property in the course of his/her duty and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the damage of property is not related to the ordinary concurrent crimes which correspond to

Nevertheless, the lower court is against the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the injury of the business.