The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. Since the Defendant did not recognize the fact causing a traffic accident, he/she has an intention to flee.

Therefore, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unnecessary measures after the accident) are not established.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (amounting to 6 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, especially the E and G’s respective legal statements, the defendant was found to have escaped without any measure even though he/she was aware that the instant traffic accident occurred due to his/her mistake.

1. E and G not only in an investigative agency but also in the court of the court below held that “Defendant-driving Vehicle is shocked by the left-hand side of the E Driving Vehicle, and the E Driving Vehicle is shaken by its shock.

E followed the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle that runs away after shock, and the Defendant’s vehicle was driven slowly, and the Victim G, who is the passenger of the vehicle driving, requested the Defendant to stop, but the Defendant was driving.

E, like the above, while driving vehicles of the Defendant, led to the background of the Defendant’s driving vehicle and raised the warning.

Defendant

It can be acknowledged that the victim made a consistent statement in lieu of the situation before and after the traffic accident, such as testimony that the vehicle could no longer take place due to the bus prior to it, the victim taken photographs the Defendant's driver's vehicle, and the defendant tried to continue driving.

The court below acknowledged the defendant's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of Road Traffic Act (unnecessary measures after an accident) on the grounds of the aforementioned testimony, etc., and found that the court below clearly erred in recognizing the credibility of each court's testimony E and G.

there are special circumstances to consider

shall be deemed to be.