2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting a crime, suffered injury to the victim by taking a rocketing taxi driven by the victim E as a car, and at the same time, went away without taking necessary measures even after destroying the said taxi.

E stated in the police investigation and the court of the court below that “after the instant accident, the driver of a sea-going vehicle set the said taxi on the left side of the said vehicle due to the stopping defect, and then the driver of the wing vehicle changed the driver’s license to the driver of the wing vehicle for 10 minutes, and the driver of the melting vehicle was able to view the defense and escaped as it is.”

In addition, in the process of one police investigation, the photograph No. 2 and No. 8 of the perpetrator's photograph was included in eight photographs including the Defendant's face, and the eight of them was the Defendant's face photograph, and Gin who is the owner of Lone Star vehicle was also considered eight of his photograph during the police investigation process at the time of the instant accident as an agent's photograph.

In light of the circumstances, etc., where E and G, the owner of the instant accident, are consistently identified by the investigative agency from the owner of the instant accident to the present court as the driver of the instant vehicle, and such E and G’s statements are consistent and specific, and there is no motive or reason for E and G to make a false statement, its credibility is recognized.

E is between the driver of the household and the driver of the household in the accident site in this case.