A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The victim cannot be deemed to have suffered injury due to the instant accident, in light of the fact that, even after the accident, the victim worked at Kinn's house without any particular problem, the victim was issued a written diagnosis within six days after the accident, and the reason for receipt of the written diagnosis also follow the police's instructions.

2) The Defendant asked not only the victim of an accident but also the victim whether he did not go to the hospital. However, the Defendant did not recognize the victim's injury because he did not give any particular answer, and G did not think that “the victim's consent was obtained,” and left the scene.

Thus, the defendant had the intention to escape at the time of the case.

It is also difficult to see it.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment. However, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that ① the Defendant, who had been a sudden intern on the two-lanes, avoided a collision with the vehicle driven by the Defendant, and went beyond it together with Oralba, and ② the Defendant gets a window and sent it to the victim “The Defendant”.

“After speaking, “A stop on the side and waiting for a substitute driver to leave the side while leaving the same 100 meters,” the fact that the victim was said to have been waiting for the driver to leave the side, ③ the victim told that while the Defendant reported to the police, the victim should be in charge of the Defendant’s accident. ④ Since then G arrived at the scene of the accident and divided the Defendant’s dialogue with the Defendant, and that the Defendant would have the victim interfere with the insurance management when the Defendant left the hospital, G inform the victim of contact.