The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With respect to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Egressing Vehicles) claiming misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the pains that the victim suffered from the instant accident cannot be assessed as "injury" under the Criminal Act, as long as it can be naturally cured due to the passage of time.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant (the penalty amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine reveals the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the victim, who was admitted to the F Hospital on April 21, 2016, following the instant accident, was diagnosed as requiring drug treatment and physical treatment between two weeks after undergoing drug treatment and physical treatment. By May 9, 2016, the victim received physical treatment at F Hospital several times until the date of the instant accident, and the victim suffered inconvenience and inconvenience in the degree of each month of the instant accident.

In light of the fact that statements are made, and the part and content of the victim's injury are ordinarily likely to occur as the background of the occurrence of the instant accident, etc., it is difficult to view that the victim's injury cannot be evaluated as "injury" under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, annoyed treatment, to the extent that it does not need to be treated.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable even if there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing after the lower judgment’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case are considered.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.