It was not known that the victim suffered bodily injury or that there was no intention to escape.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim suffered injuries, such as cloudal dys, etc., requiring treatment for about two weeks after being shocked by the Defendant’s vehicle, (ii) the victim demanded the Defendant to contact with the Defendant immediately after the accident, and that the Defendant was faced with the shocked warning even at the time of the accident, so long as the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the fact that the victim was shocked on his own vehicle, and (iii) the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the fact that the victim was shocked, and (iv) the Defendant was informed of false contact information to the victim and leaving the scene, even if dominated at the time, it can be recognized that the Defendant intentionally escaped from the scene of the accident without taking necessary relief measures, since the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

[Defendant vindicates that, although the victim did not have a sufficient fact at the time, he was suspected of having committed an insurance fraud against the defendant, the defendant should take relief measures against the victim by sending back to the hospital or informing the victim of his contact address at least in consideration of the possibility of injury to the victim in the situation referred to as the victim in 1938, and without any specific grounds, concluding the victim's horse as insurance fraud and making false contact information.