The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the course of driving a car, the Defendant did not take measures such as shocking the victim to injure the victim and providing relief to the victim while driving the car, and left the site without taking measures such as aiding the victim, and the victim went away from the road. As a result, the victim was shocked and died on the vehicle B that was proceeding later, and there is a proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s escape and the death of the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the primary charges by deeming that there was no causal relationship between the Defendant’s escape and the victim’s death.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of community service order, 200 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of order to attend a law-abiding driving lecture) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the primary facts charged is the person who is engaged in driving a car in the Eranchis (TG).

On August 23, 2013, the Defendant driven the said car at around 04:10, while driving the G road in order to drive the said car, the front of the G road in Seoul Metropolitan Area F at the time of the Jeonjin-gu at the time of the Jeonjin-gu along one-lane from the room of the vehicle registration office to the Songcheon-gu basin.

In this case, a driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately operating the steering direction and brake system while observing the speed limit.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent in neglecting the duty of 101 kilometers per hour while driving at a speed exceeding 70 kilometers per hour, and neglected to perform the duty of cryping at a speed exceeding 101 kilometers per hour, and the left-hand part of the victim H (the age of 31) who was placed on a one-lane road at the same time is shocked to the left-hand front part of the said car, thereby causing the injury to the victim, and went away from the site without taking measures such as aiding the victim.