The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) has no fact that the defendant has charged the victim with the vehicle.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant did not take necessary measures even after destroying the victim vehicle by shocking the victim vehicle as stated in the judgment below is sufficiently recognized.

가. 피해자는 수사기관부터 원심 법정에 이르기까지 일관하여 “ 당시 편도 2 차로 도로의 2 차로를 따라 차량을 운전하고 있었는데 갑자기 ‘ 쾅’ 소리가 나서 옆을 보니 1 차로를 따라 진행하던 피고인 차량이 2 차로로 넘어와 자신의 차량 좌측 측면을 충격하고 지나갔고, 그 충격으로 좌측 사이드 미러가 접히고 좌측 측면이 긁혔다.

At the time H had been proceeding more than his own vehicle, it was called to H, and it was called to H, “The Defendant’s vehicle, after shocking his own vehicle, has fleded, and is going to turn to the left now.

The phrase “H left the left” prevents the front of the Defendant’s vehicle that the H want to turn to the left and stopped the Defendant’s vehicle.

the defendant, "if the person has shocked the vehicle, the place

followed. Whether he has fled or not

‘ 고 하였더니 피고인은 아무 말을 하지 않았고, 피고인 차량에 동승하였던 사람이 내려 자신도 ’ 쾅‘ 소리를 들었고 죄송하다고

was made.

H Ising a vehicle on the sideway by the side;

On the other hand, after moving the vehicle, he was seated in the play delivery, and H was able to talk with the defendant and his driver, and H went on the vehicle between the defendant and his driver.

At the time, the Defendant was under drinking, the Defendant was drinking, the Defendant was drinking only, the Defendant continued to work for the Defendant, and the Defendant did not take measures such as checking the damage status.

“At the time of the accident and before and after the accident.”