The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Defendant

No driving vehicle has shocked with the victim's driver's vehicle, and the driver's act of the defendant did not cause the instant traffic accident.

In other words, there is no substantial relation between the fact that the defendant tried to change the lane from one lane to two lanes during the stop signal and the fact that the victim's Obane driver does not match with the defendant's driver's vehicle.

Since the defendant leaves the scene without causing any traffic accident, there is no intention on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

[Defendant's defense counsel stated the final opinion on the second trial date in the appellate trial where the appellate brief of reasons for appeal was not timely filed, and even ex officio, the court below's sentencing is too heavy.

Even if ex officio, in full view of the reasons for sentencing as stated by the court below and the fact that there are no special changes in circumstances that could change the punishment of the court below after the decision of the court below, the punishment imposed by the court below cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable, and thus, the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the appellate court, there is considerable relation between the Defendant’s act of changing the car car and the act committed on the road beyond the victim’s driver’s license, and there is intent to violate the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Epiking Vehicle) while leaving the site without taking necessary measures, such as aiding the victim.

Since the defendant's argument cannot be accepted in all.

It is necessary to maintain the first deliberation judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial.