The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case without recognizing the fact of the instant accident, and even if he was aware of the fact that the accident occurred, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s act as an escape based on the intention of escape, since the Defendant did not immediately stop due to the circumstance that the place of the accident occurred, etc.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted all the charges of this case, including the death of escape, is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the judgment.

B. The Defendant’s crime of death resulting from escape in the instant case is committed under the influence of alcohol, etc.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (three years of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the testimony of the witness G by the witness G of the appellate court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, namely, ① the Defendant’s vehicle had a large sound in shocking the victim, and the said witness was able to hear the sound from the person around the victim.

The statement, ② The front glass of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident is so far as it is difficult to secure the view of the front door, and ③ the Defendant’s vehicle is shocked and progress as it is, the victim was deprived of the road floor at the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the said witness was driving the Defendant’s vehicle by avoiding the victim who was away from the front door of the front door.

In full view of the statements, the fact that the defendant had escaped by the intention of the escape is sufficiently recognized even though he/she was aware of the accident at the time of the instant case.

The circumstances alone, such as the defendant's assertion, are immediately following the accident.