The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is without sufficient proof that the Defendant had shocked the victimized person as stated in the instant facts charged, and there was such a traffic accident.

Even if the shock was minor and the defendant did not know the occurrence of the accident itself, so the defendant had the criminal intent to escape.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the occurrence of the instant traffic accident and the Defendant’s intent of escape.

(1) When the front part of the bicycle wheels and the defendant's vehicle face with each other, the victim shall use the bicycle together with the bicycle, and the shoulder and the arms of the victim shall contact the floor.

② In the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle adjoins to the inside of the train.

③ 사고 현장 도로 맞은편 길가에 앉아 있다가 사고를 목격한 F는 “‘ 퍽’ 하는 소리가 나서 사고를 목격하게 되었는데, 검은색 차량이 자전거를 충돌한 후 암사 역 방면으로 도주하였다” 는 취지로 진술하였다.

④ 피고인은 사고 다음날 수사를 받으면서 “ 사고 당시 저의 차량이 뭔 가에 충돌되는 ‘ 쿵’ 하는 느낌은 있었는데 인도 경계석을 충돌한 것으로 생각하였습니다

“The vehicle has been driven after the accident and returned to the scene of the accident, and the vehicle has been landed from the vehicle.

B. In addition to the above circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, the following circumstances, i.e., the victim’s bicycle was the driver’s seat in the Defendant’s vehicle, and the damaged person driven the Defendant’s vehicle after the accident, are added.