The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicted the Defendant.

1) As to the progress of the procedure, the lower court rendered a judgment even though the Defendant did not confession the facts charged, which was going through a simple trial, and even if the admissibility of evidence was not well-founded.

2) As to the part concerning the violation of road traffic laws due to bad driving, beyond the extent necessary for police officers to regulate the Defendant who violated minor traffic laws and regulations at the time, there was the same result as the stated in the facts charged on the wind to track the Defendant’s vehicle excessively.

Therefore, the criminal liability of the defendant should be avoided in accordance with the excessive escape (Article 22 (2) of the Criminal Code) and the forced act (Article 12 of the Criminal Code).

3) With respect to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unnecessary Measures after Accidents) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Exemplary Vehicles), the Defendant was in a situation in which it is difficult for the Defendant to take accident management or relief measures due to excessive tracking by police officers.

The injury suffered by the victims is unfilled, and it is not included in the concept of "injury" as referred to in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

After the defendant stops, since the victim was crypted and his/her personal information, it does not constitute “a case where leaving the scene of an accident resulting in a situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident cannot be confirmed.”

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record, the court below did not seem to have been proceeding in a simplified trial procedure, but cannot find any illegality in the result of the examination and adoption of evidence.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

2) According to the evidence duly examined and adopted, the Defendant’s illegal round-up was conducted at the time.