All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the legal doctrine (not guilty part) brought about a situation in which the driver of the accident was unable to determine who was a witness at the scene of the accident, such as taking a witness at the police site, and the case constitutes a case where the driver of the accident escaped without implementing the necessary measures under Article 48(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since the court below acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant: The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the court below is just in the determination of the court below that it is difficult to view the defendant as having left the scene of an accident due to the criminal intent of escape after causing a traffic accident and taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (a) the defendant appears to have requested the 119 report to the person who was in the vicinity of the scene of the accident after the accident, by examining the victim’s condition immediately after the accident; (b) the J and the defendant’s 112 report, which is an investigation record, and the victim had already arrived at the scene of the accident; and (c) the defendant had already been sent back to the hospital; and (d) the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as argued by the

B. As to each of the unfair claims for sentencing, the lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, and considering that the victim’s bereaved family members wanted back the Defendant’s wife at the trial, the Defendant’s negligence was significant, the victim’s death was grave, and the Defendant caused an accident of drinking again only for about five months after being punished for driving alcohol. In so doing, the lower court’s punishment is too excessive.