2. The Defendant denied the facts charged in this case by asserting that the lower court had the same purport as that of the trial at the lower court, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds of the reasons stated in Articles 3 and 4 of the original judgment.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in detail, the court below's judgment is just in its determination on the following grounds: (a) considering the following circumstances revealed in detail, the defendant suffered bodily injury, such as cerebral wave, etc., requiring treatment for about three weeks by failing to stop immediately and stop the victim, and sufficiently recognized the fact that the defendant escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim, even though he/she did so by failing to perform his/her duty of care; and (b) therefore, the court below's judgment

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

① The victim consistently stated from the police to the court of the court below that, immediately after the accident, the Defendant’s wife stated that the Defendant’s wife stated that “the head is sufficient to salking the head due to the accident, and the head is cut off.”

The F, immediately after the accident, stated that the Defendant “I am the same as that of a child or head, so I am the woman,” and the police also asked the victim whether she is fine or not, and asked twice to the extent that the head is sound, and there is no further statement to the victim.