The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is that the Defendant did not know the fact that he had shocked the victim’s vehicle at the time of the instant case, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intent of escape, and the victim cannot be deemed to have suffered an injury due to the instant accident, and the victim merely did not have concealed the Defendant’s vehicle, but did not lead to the occurrence of a traffic danger.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the reasons for appeal, and the court below found that ① in light of the degree of damage of the victim’s box image and damaged vehicle at the time of the instant accident, the shock caused by the instant accident was reasonable, and even at the time, the Defendant was driving a stroke.

Even if the defendant's assertion that this degree of shock accident was not known is difficult to believe, and ② the victim did not conduct a serious inspection such as CT or MRI due to the accident in this case, but was hospitalized after the accident in this case, and received ordinary pain treatment due to traffic accidents such as physical therapy, and it cannot be deemed that there was no injury as prescribed in Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and ③ since the victim was able to find the defendant's vehicle after the accident in this case, the above assertion was rejected, and found guilty of the charge in this case.

On the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as follows, i.e., the accident of this case: (i) the vehicle of this case was shocked to the extent that the vehicle of this case is damaged beyond the center line to the extent that the vehicle of this case is damaged.