The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not accurately understand the shock of the Defendant’s vehicle and damaged vehicle, and the Defendant was able to see that the victim was frightened, but the victim was frightened to be fine, and only left the scene without taking relief measures, etc., and did not have the intention of escape.

In addition, in light of the shock degree of the instant accident, it is difficult to view that the victim sustained injury that can be recognized as an injury or injury under the Criminal Act as stated in the judgment below.

On the other hand, due to the instant accident, the vehicle was not scattered on the road, and there was no particular error in the damaged vehicle (the damaged vehicle's hole is not caused by the Defendant's vehicle). Therefore, the Defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (the failure to take measures after the accident) against the Defendant.

B. In light of the overall circumstances of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the court below (5 million won of fine) is too unlimited and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the crime of Do driving car, witness D, F’s legal statement, CD verification result, etc. as follows; ① The damaged vehicle at the time of the accident seems to have been seriously intersection and pushedly in the future; ② the defendant was confirmed on the vehicle immediately after the accident, and the defendant was found to have failed to accurately recognize the shock fact because there is no other shock trace of shock between the defendant’s vehicle and the damaged vehicle. However, according to the CCTV image of the ICO, about 10 seconds after the collision, the defendant was found to have left the vehicle after leaving the vehicle, and it does not comply with the above defense contents of the defendant; ③ The defendant was about 10 U.S. on the first half of the first half of the collision.