The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) As the personal and material damage of the victim caused by the instant accident is insignificant, there was no need to take relief measures, etc. against the victim (hereinafter “first assertion”). (2) The Defendant not only provided the victim with his/her name immediately after the instant accident, but also returned to the scene after moving the vehicle temporarily in order to ensure smooth traffic at the time.

Therefore, the Defendant did not flee at the time, and there was no intention to commit a crime of escape (hereinafter “Second Claim”). (3) On the road immediately after the accident, there was no product, etc. on the road, and did not cause any particular traffic danger and impediment, and thus, a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “third Claim”) cannot be established (hereinafter “instant assertion”). B. Determination of the lower court’s unfair sentence of sentencing (two years during the suspension of the execution of six months), is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Determination as to the first argument (1) Even if the defendant alleged that there was no great inconvenience to the victim immediately after the accident, and there was no address in appearance.

Even if such circumstance alone reveals that the victim actively expressed that it is unnecessary to take relief measures against the defendant or that emergency measures are not necessary due to minor injuries of the victim, objective and clear.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(2) Rather, as the court below explained in detail, it seems that the impact of the victim of the instant accident was significantly significant, and the victim actually received hospitalized treatment for 9 days from the date of the accident. In light of the fact that the victim suffered from the instant accident cannot be assessed as “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, annoyingly, to the extent that the victim’s injury could not be assessed as “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, there was no need to treat the victim as a wound.

It does not seem to be seen as above, and the degree of injury of the victim.