The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the case of mistake of facts, the degree of injury of the victim is minor, and in light of the circumstances of the accident, it cannot be deemed as "injury", and the defendant did not recognize the fact that the accident in this case occurred, and there was no intention to commit the crime of escape.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) In order to establish a crime of escape driving under Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”), where the result of thought should arise; (b) simple danger to life and body of the victim; or (c) annoyer who is extremely unlikely to be evaluated as “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act does not need to be treated as a superior position; and thus, it is difficult to deem that the occurrence of a violation of health conditions is difficult (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do3910, Feb. 25, 2000). Meanwhile, in light of the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of drivers of escape vehicles under Article 5-3 of the Special Crimes Act and its legal interest, etc., if it is deemed necessary to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, even if the accident driver did not take measures such as relief, etc.

However, whether there was a need to take measures such as aiding the victim, the details and contents of the accident, and the victim.