The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal ① The Defendant was determined while driving a vehicle on a tent in order to park in an apartment complex, and the victim was crypted and the victim was able to live in the aspect of the vehicle, and the occurrence of a traffic accident by the Defendant’s vehicle did not occur. Even if a traffic accident occurred, the Defendant did not recognize it, and there was no negligence by the Defendant on the occurrence thereof.

② The Defendant and the Defendant’s wife identified the victim who attempted to leave the scene immediately after the instant case, but did not appear in the victim, and the victim was fine for negligence.

was made.

Therefore, the Defendant could not be aware that he was injured by the victim, and the victim sustained the “injury” under the Criminal Act.

shall not be effective.

③ The Defendant had no intention to flee since the Defendant stated to the victim that “Adozine was 101 apartment units.”

2. The Defendant has the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion and its decision in detail.

① In particular, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the original trial, the fact that the victim was faced with the vehicle run by the defendant is clearly recognized, and in light of the circumstances of the instant traffic accident, negligence, such as the defendant’s breach of duty to drive safety, etc. is sufficiently recognized. ② The victim was 9 years old and was 3 years old to fully grasp her circumstances, and thus, the victim was fine even if she was fine.

Even if the defendant did not have expertise in medical science, he taken protective measures, such as taking the victim into the hospital.

(3) Nevertheless, the defendant does not get off from the train and opened a chief door to ask the victim whether he is fine. The defendant is fine for the victim.