The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

1) The Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the Defendant merely left the scene of the accident because he was not the victim’s family living together and was fine, and the Defendant merely left the scene of the accident, and there was no intention of escape. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant left the scene of the accident by driving the vehicle, despite having been said to be the principal office, was reliable. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine (Chapter 1) (Chapter 2), merely because the injury suffered by the victim was merely a degree of “satisfy”

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on different premise, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(Chapter 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (No. 5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

Article 54 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, etc." as stated in Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts refers to a case where the driver of an accident leaves the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty provided in Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, although he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, causing the accident's occurrence of the accident's identity, such as aiding the victim. The purpose of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles