The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) is minor and thus, the health status of victims was infringed.

It is difficult to see that the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not established.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (in the absence of an order) is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August, the observation of protection, the community service for 160 hours, and the order to attend a law enforcement for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. "When the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, etc." under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to the case where the driver of an accident knows that the injured person was injured by the accident, such as aiding the injured person, leaving the accident site before performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, and causing the situation where it is impossible to confirm who caused the accident. Thus, in order to establish the crime of escape, the occurrence of the result of the accident must occur, and the crime of escape should be established, and the mere danger to the body of the injured person, or the "injury" under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act cannot be assessed as a "injury", and therefore, it is unnecessary to treat him/her as a standing room and thus, it thereby infringing health conditions.

In a case where it is difficult to see it, the above crime is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do3910 delivered on February 25, 200, etc.). B. The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.