The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The defendant's vehicle and victim G taxi shall not have suffered any injury because his/her shock level is insignificant;

Therefore, there was no need to take relief measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act at the time of the Defendant’s accident, and even if the Defendant left the scene after the accident.

Even if the defendant violates the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the crime cannot be established.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty was erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the defendant's defense counsel stated that the grounds for appeal was erroneous in the appellate brief and the appellate court court stated in the above appellate brief, but according to the above appellate brief), the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below was based on the following circumstances, i.e., photographs (the 13th page of the investigation record) which taken the back of the left back of the taxi of the victim G, and the passenger I aboard the taxi was found to have a large number of defects in the back of the taxi, and there was a significant impact on the defendant's vehicle and the victim's G taxi on the ground that "the defendant's defense counsel was misunderstanding the legal reasoning of the appellate brief and the appellate brief."

(2) The victim G received a medical certificate to the effect that he/she was hospitalized for 4 days at a hospital due to pains after the accident, and that he/she was suffering from an injury requiring two weeks' medical treatment on the side, such as the flusium, the flusium, the flusium, the right bed, and the right bed, etc., and (3) the defendant left from the site without taking any measures to identify his/her identity upon reporting to the passenger I on 112.

However, I's police and the court below's decision.