The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim alleged misunderstanding of facts and legal principles did not suffer injury to the extent necessary to take relief measures or damaged the vehicle due to the instant accident, and the Defendant left the scene of the instant accident without knowing the occurrence of the instant accident, and thus did not have the intent to commit an escape.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, as to the fact that a person was killed or wounded in the course of performing duties and attempted to abscond after the accident

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 7 million imposed by the court below is too unreasonable in light of various sentencing conditions against the defendant who alleged unfair sentencing.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, comprehensively considered the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, determined in its reasoning, determined that measures were necessary after the accident of this case, such as rescue of victims, etc., and that the Defendant can be recognized as having known of such circumstances that he had

The decision was determined.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, the defendant and the victim had been driving in a dangerous and dangerous manner prior to the occurrence of the accident in this case, and thus, it could be easily anticipated that the defendant would drive the defendant in the event of the occurrence of the accident and escape. However, in addition to the fact that there was a high possibility of causing new traffic risks and obstacles in the process, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there was such error as claimed by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. Determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is examined, and the defendant has been driving in a drinking state to cause a traffic accident and escaped.