The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The Defendant did not know that the victim D was injured and that the victim G was shocked, and that rescue measures could not be taken because he was threatened with the victims, related to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (or violation of the Road Traffic Act) and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (or after the accident).

2) A mobile phone sales deposit was received from the victim'sO related to fraud, and from the victim's RR, a closed smartphone payment was received, and the victim Q Q and K supplied a closed smartphone in return for money, and Q’s damage amount is KRW 2.5 million, not KRW 30 million, not KRW 300 million.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant misleads the defendant about the injury from escape and the injury after accident, ① the first accident involving the victim D's loaded onto the ship, and the victim D's self-influence to load the ship to catch the defendant. ② In the case of the second accident involving sufficient vehicles of the victim G, the victim G caused the accident by blocking the defendant's vehicle as his own vehicle, and the defendant was not aware of the shock fact at the time. ③ In the case of the third accident involving the defendant's vehicle, the defendant did not violate the duty of due diligence, and therefore, there was no violation of the duty of due diligence.

Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted in the lower court and the trial, Defendant 1: (a) had the Poter vehicle take the Poter vehicle and had the vehicle loaded with the victim D by shocking it (hereinafter “the first accident in this case”); (b) had the vehicle shocked (hereinafter “the second accident in this case”); and (c) had the vehicle shocked from the course of business and getting off the vehicle due to the failure to reduce the speed in the course of the accident (hereinafter “the third accident in this case”); and (d) took necessary measures after the accident.