The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of misunderstanding the facts in this case merely suffered an extremely minor wound due to the accident of this case, and the defendant at the time understood that the wife G of the victim would be able to bring about the defendant a loss to the defendant, and left the scene, and there was no intention to escape from the scene.

Therefore, although the facts charged in this case did not constitute a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant is erroneous and adversely affected by

B. The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to whether the victim was injured by the accident of this case, the victim was injured by salt, tension, etc. in the part of his elbow part requiring treatment for about three weeks as stated in the facts constituting the crime of this case, and this cannot be said to be merely a simple danger to the life and body, or an extremely minor circumstance to the extent that it cannot be evaluated as the "injury" under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act. The defendant cannot be accepted the above assertion. (A) The defendant driving the vehicle as indicated in the judgment of the court below at the time of this case, while driving the vehicle of this case, followed the victim's left edge with the front shoulder of the vehicle of this case, and shocked the victim's left part of the victim's left part.

The defendant asserts that there is no fact that he did not neglect the victim's left side.

However, the victim stated consistently at the police and the court below that the wheels of the defendant's vehicle was the victim's desire.

The above statement of the victim was made by the court of the trial of the J that the victim stated that the victim was the victim's vehicle to the J at the time, and the victim was the victim.