2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① G was in the court of the lower court’s determination that “the victim was unsatisfed at the time of the instant case and went to the court of first instance.”

At the time, the Defendant stated that the victim was not in a difficult situation to find the victim; ② Even if the victim was a Albimer patient, the victim seems to have been aware of his or her ability to contact with his or her child immediately after the occurrence of the accident (the page 23 of the evidence record); and the victim was not only the old age of 78 years of age but also the situation of movement immediately before the accident, etc., the victim was c

It is difficult to see a traffic accident analysis report or factual inquiry by the Road Traffic Authority, and the result of the comprehensive traffic accident analysis report or inquiry by the Road Traffic Authority is simply presumed to be a presumption of the distance and time operated by the defendant by finding the victim, and it is difficult to conclude whether or not the defendant could avoid an accident depending on the road environment, etc. ④ The location of the accident in this case differs from one lane, and the defendant has shocked on the right side from the front left side of the vehicle in front of the vehicle. If the defendant reduced speed and confirmed the surrounding traffic and pedestrian conditions, it appears that the defendant could avoid a collision or reduce the damage caused by manipulating the brake action or hand by manipulating the victim. Ultimately, it is recognized that the relationship between the negligence of violating the defendant's duty to see at the front time and the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case is recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.