The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Since the Defendant did not recognize the fact that the instant accident, which caused the Defendant’s vehicle, bus, and road structure, was caused by his fault, the Defendant did not have intention to escape and to take measures subsequent to the accident.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

(2) Even if the Defendant was guilty of an unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts (1) "the case where the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" means the case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene of accident before performing his/her duty under Article 50 (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, and brings about a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do2869, Dec. 7, 199; 9Do375, May 12, 198). If the degree of awareness of the fact that the victim was killed or injured is not necessarily conclusive, and if the driver of the accident knew of the fact that he/she was directly aware of the accident without knowing it, he/she could not have known it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do375 delivered on May 12, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 99Do5023 delivered on March 28, 2000, etc.). (2) The lower court.