The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant committed a violation of the Road Traffic Act (after-accident), recognizing the fact of an accident to the victim D, the owner of a window-stom vehicle, who was driven by the taxi immediately after the accident, would be likely to obstruct the passage of the surrounding vehicle and return to another place.

The next taxi is arrested only to the police officer who was dispatched while driving the taxi.

Therefore, at the time there was a criminal intent against the defendant for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident).

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident), and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) by reliance on the measurement value of drinking through the respiratory tester, despite the fact that the defendant's crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving under drinking), committed a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving under drinking under the influence of alcohol), which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact.

(c)

The Defendant alleged that the sentencing was unfair on the first trial date of the trial of the first instance court, but the above argument is not a legitimate ground for appeal since it was filed after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal with the reason for appeal. Moreover, even ex officio, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the part of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident), the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant did not check the accident scene at the taxi in which the vehicle with a windslele and the car engine were driven while driving, as stated in the judgment of the court below, and interfere with the passage of the victims.