The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and mistake, the instant traffic accident does not constitute so-called driver of the so-called accident, inasmuch as the victim’s vehicle was in a straight speed and received the Defendant’s vehicle behind the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Defendant who normally left the right at the intersection

Accordingly, the defendant thought that he was the victim of the instant traffic accident. At the time of the accident, the defendant thought that he was the victim of the instant traffic accident. At the time of the accident, he did not have an intention of escape since he reported the accident to the police station on the next day because there was no yellow situation, such as giving his her son and her

Since the victim continued to engage in his/her occupation after the day when the accident occurred and was issued a medical certificate one week after the accident occurred, the victim's injury is naturally cured without impeding daily life, so it is not necessary to take relief measures.

In spite of this point, there was a defendant's negligence and intention of escape, and there was an injury in need of relief measures for the victim.

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the 2-year suspended sentence for 6 months, the 80-hour community service order, and the 40-hour compulsory driving order) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's negligence and the intention of escape, since the intersection where the traffic accident in this case occurred did not have a signal, such intersection shall take precedence over the vehicle to turn to the left. However, the fact that the defendant neglected his duty at the front and left turn to the left turn and the damaged vehicle which was going to the right turn to the left is shocked (part of the damaged person's fault).

(2) the defendant.