The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, without recognizing that the occurrence of the instant accident was caused by the Defendant, proceeded on the vehicle and did not have the intention of escape.

The victims' injury does not require any separate treatment, and there was no need for relief by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When a victim of an accident runs away without taking any measure as prescribed in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person or aiding the injured person, etc.” refers to a case where the driver of an accident runs away from the scene before he performs his duty as prescribed in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person despite his knowledge of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured, resulting in a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do250, Mar. 12, 2004). The degree of awareness of the fact that the injured person was killed due to the accident does not necessarily require confirmation, but does so if the injured person was aware of the fact that he was killed, but does not have the possibility of the accident, and if the injured person was aware of it from the scene.

As a result, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is examined in light of the records (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13091, Apr. 28, 201). 2) As a result, the above defendant's assertion is examined.