All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 3,00,000 won of the lower court’s punishment (fine 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) is obligated to verify whether an accident driver was a person boarding the automobile at the time of the accident pursuant to Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and the Defendant has shocked his freight lane of this case (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant was aware of the traffic accident of this case, and the Defendant was aware of the traffic accident of this case, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that E, a passenger of the instant Ecoos car, could suffer an injury. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter “fine 3,00,000”) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court determined that it is reasonable to determine that the Defendant was unaware of the existence of a person in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the act of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Traffic Accidents) in the indictment of this case on the premise that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was not aware of the existence of a person in the above vehicle at the time of shocking the vehicle of this case, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, the Defendant was at least 20:50: the time of collision with the vehicle of this case on the truck of this case; rather, at the time of the accident, the vehicle of this case was at the point of accident and stopped without turning on the vehicle of this case, and that at the time of the accident, the Defendant was not aware of the existence of a person in the above vehicle of this case, and Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents should be applied to the violation of this Act.