The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the situation at the time of the instant traffic accident, the age and health conditions of the victims, and the attitude of the victims after the instant traffic accident, etc., the victims cannot be deemed to have suffered the "injury" under the Criminal Act due to the damage of their physical integrity, failure to maintain their living and living conditions, or poor health conditions, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant necessary to take measures to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic hazards and obstacles after the instant traffic accident, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The defendant asserted the same purport as the above reasons for appeal in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument by explaining the judgment on the defendant's above argument under the title "the judgment on the dispute point". Considering the above judgment of the court below closely compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined, it can be determined that the victims damaged the completeness of body due to the injury of the victim in the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes, or interfere with physiological function due to the injury of the victim in the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes, and as to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (after the accident), it shall be deemed that the defendant who escaped from the victim D had caused new traffic hazards and interference. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or by misunderstanding

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.