In addition, at the site immediately after the accident in this case, the defendant's workplace was under the control of the back of the accident, and the defendant believed the back of the accident in the same case, and did not leave the scene of the accident in this case, but did not leave the scene of the accident. The defendant was in the private taxi site, and the personal taxi certificate was attached to the defendant's cell phone and wallet, and the defendant's cell phone and wallet were located at that site. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have been unable to identify the person who caused the accident by leaving the scene of the accident.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. The medical examination submitted by the victim of the crime of injury to the victim under relevant legal principles on the occurrence of injury to the victim and the necessity of relief measures is not enough to be a direct proof of the fact that the injury as stated therein was caused by the criminal act of the defendant, since the doctor has identified the cause of injury based on the victim's statement and stated the part and degree of injury observed and judged by mobilization of medical professional knowledge. However, the date and time of the diagnosis as to the injury is close to the time and time of the occurrence of the injury, and there is no special circumstance to suspect the credibility in the process of issuing the written medical examination, and if the part and degree of the injury alleged by the victim coincide with those of the victim, the victim thereafter.