A. The injury suffered by the victims due to the instant traffic accident was not sufficient to take relief measures.

B. After the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, the Defendant discovered the degree of injury of the driver of the damaged vehicle and transferred contact information, and did not notify the driver of the damaged vehicle in currency due to the sudden disturbance, and did not leave the scene of the accident, so there was no intention of escape.

2. The court below also held that there was no need to take relief measures against the victims in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the victims suffered injuries requiring two-day medical treatment, i.e., the victims, and ii the degree of shock at the time of the accident occurring in the post-victims image of the damaged vehicle.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, it is recognized that the victims suffered an injury due to the instant traffic accident and needed relief measures.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. Determination as to whether the defendant had no criminal intent to escape

A. According to the career reports, career records, and nursing records submitted by the Defendant, at around 01:03 on the same day after the accident 30 minutes, the Defendant appealed from the emergency room of the hospital at around 01:03 square meters after the accident, the fact that the Defendant was hospitalized by October 4, 2016 is recognized.

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant is dissatisfied with this Opinion.