The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal brought an injury to the victims by negligence, but the Defendant had no record of causing a traffic accident, and the Defendant left the scene of the accident without recognizing the occurrence of the accident at all due to minor degree of damage. Therefore, the Defendant escaped.

subsection (b) of this section.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

(2) The Defendant asserted the illegality of sentencing on the grounds of appeal at the first trial date. However, the grounds for appeal submitted within the period for submitting a petition of appeal or a statement of reasons for appeal are not indicated in the grounds for appeal. Thus, this cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal.

In examining ex officio the court below, since the court below sentenced the lowest of the fine after selecting the fine, the sentence heavier than the sentence imposed by the court below.

subsection (b) of this section.

2. Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "a case where a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a damaged person," refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, although he/she recognizes the fact that the injured person was killed due to an accident, resulting in a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused the accident as to who caused the accident.

In this context, the degree of perception of the fact that the injured person was killed due to an accident is not necessarily required to be confirmed, but it is sufficient to recognize dolusently, and in case of leaving from the accident site when the injured person was aware that he was fully aware of the accident, there is a dolusent perception in the absence of such awareness.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13091, April 28, 2011, etc.).