All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In light of the fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the degree of the instant traffic accident is minor, the Defendant issued a driver’s license and a name tag to the victim E, and the towing vehicle issued the towing vehicle’s name to the towing vehicle, leaving the scene of the accident, and taking into account the fact that the strike is not scattered on the road even if it is based on a photo at the scene of the traffic accident, there was a need to take measures to prevent and eliminate traffic hazards and obstacles caused by the instant traffic accident to ensure smooth traffic.

It is difficult to view the defendant as committing a violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident).

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the victim E stated in the investigative agency that “In spite of the appeal of the pain, the Defendant escaped at the site, and there was no warning that the Defendant would have known the Defendant that he would go to the hospital.”

In addition, the victims were not treated on the day of the accident because the defendant did not immediately receive insurance.

Although the Defendant asserts that it was not an escape from the accident site, the Defendant’s statement is difficult to accept the assertion that the Defendant was frighten to the victim E of the aged, and the Defendant was forced to tow the towing vehicle even though the instant traffic accident was minor. Considering the fact that the Defendant’s boom card was extracted from the Defendant’s vehicle boom, it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s statement.

2) Even if the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (in the case of a violation of the law on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes which was improper in sentencing,

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act provide that a driver, etc. shall engage in damage to goods due to traffic, such as driving of a vehicle.