The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not intend to flee because of the mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, such as undermining the left-hand climatic climatic infection, etc. around July 2012, the Defendant was unable to recognize the fact that the instant accident occurred due to the lack of hearing ability at the time of the instant case.

In addition, there was no need to take measures, such as aiding victims, in light of the shock degree of the instant accident, the injury level and degree of victims, the degree of damage of the vehicle, etc.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found all of the facts charged in this case guilty.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle on the assertion that there was no intention to flee due to a failure to recognize the fact of accident, “when the driver of the accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc.” under Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to a case where the driver of the accident, despite having known the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident, leaving the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, brings about a situation where it is impossible to determine who caused the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do375, May 12, 1998; 9Do2869, Dec. 7, 199). In this context, “the degree of awareness of the fact that the victim was killed due to the accident” does not necessarily have to be confirmed, and it is sufficient enough to do so in light of the following legal principles.