The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not recognize the accident and did not have the intention of escape. Even if the intention of escape was recognized, the physical damage of the victim caused by the accident of this case was exaggerated and the degree of injury was not the degree of injury, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The court below determined that the defendant had a criminal intent to flee, taking full account of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the defendant's act of changing the vehicle from the two lanes to the one lane is difficult to view that the driver was a driver who changed the vehicle rapidly after the collision with the vehicle in front, making a sudden reduction of the collision with the vehicle in front, and ② the shocking point after the defendant changed the vehicle from the two lanes to the one lane has changed to the one, and there was a considerable distance from the two lanes at the time of shock. In light of the following circumstances, the court below determined that the defendant had been fully aware of such circumstances, ③ The shock level between the defendant's vehicle and the damaged vehicle was reasonable, and the situation that the defendant operated until the damaged vehicle was a back of the two lanes, and the defendant's assertion that the vehicle in front at the time of the instant case was a dump truck cannot be accepted.

I determined that it was reasonable to view it.

In light of the records, the above fact finding and judgment of the court below are justified and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

B. The court below held that the victim's physical damage was not the degree of injury.