The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant thought that the street trees frequently occurred during the course of normal operation of the instant accident, i.e., the truck, was shocked, and the Defendant did not find at all the damaged bicycles due to the lack of any error in the name (flag).

Therefore, since the Defendant did not recognize the fact of the instant traffic accident, the Defendant is not liable for the death resulting from escape.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) An appellate court’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles may, when it intends to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment after an ex post facto determination, even though there is no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a conviction in the course of a trial, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance court’s determination of evidence was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to fact-finding is obviously unreasonable because it is contrary to logical and empirical rules, etc. In addition, without such exceptional circumstance, the first instance court’s determination of fact-finding should not be reversed without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). In addition, “a person who runs away without taking measures under Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, despite the awareness of the fact that the victim was killed by an accident, and thus, it refers to the case where a person who was aware of the fact that the victim was killed before the accident site.