The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is an unfolding accident that occurred without contact between the defendant's automobile and the victim's ozone, and the victim was absent from the scene of the accident without knowing that the victim was injured by the accident of this case. Therefore, there was no intention of escape.

B. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of the law-abiding lecture, community service 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of all the conditions of sentencing on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) The lower court determined based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, that: (a) the Defendant was aware of the victim’s error and caused an accident to take advantage of the victim’s error; (b) the Defendant was put to the left left at the front of the Defendant’s vehicle immediately before the victim’s left-hand turn at the front of the vehicle; and (c) the Defendant was placed on the front of the Defendant’s vehicle immediately after the victim’s accident, and (d) the Defendant did not take any other relief measures after asking the victim whether the victim was punished or not; and (b) the Defendant did not directly shock the victim’s vehicle at the scene without taking any other relief measures; (c) even if the Defendant did not directly shock the victim’s error, the lower court determined that there was an intentional escape of the victim, even if the Defendant had been aware of the victim’s error in the front of the Non-Protection Party Intersection and caused an accident; and (d) the driver was negligent in performing his duty of care in driving the vehicle and caused the injury to the victim’s driver.