The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, after the instant accident, mismisunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, set the victim G at the time of dealing with the accident, write the contact details, etc. of the Defendant, and left the scene of the accident with the consent of the victim.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “doing Jeju” in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

A. The Defendant also asserted the above in the lower judgment.

As to this, the court below did not want to consistently punish the defendant under the following circumstances, i.e., the victim's statements, the consistency of the victim's statements, the victim's demand to the defendant for money as agreed money after the occurrence of the case.

Since it is difficult to recognize motives to make a false statement unfavorable to the defendant, such as statement, there is credibility in the statement, ③ if the defendant obtains the victim's understanding and leaves the scene of accident, there is no reason for the victim's immediate victim of the victim's vehicle to follow the defendant's vehicle or to photograph the front and rear part of the defendant's vehicle with the mobile phone, and even considering these circumstances, it is difficult to understand the vehicle without doing any act such as exchanging conversations with the victim again coming from the vehicle, ④ immediately after the defendant left the scene of the accident, he left the scene of the accident.

There is an escape from drinking.

The 112 report was made to the effect that the number plate was depreciated, and ⑤ the number plate was depreciated in front of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident, and the Defendant.