The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the traffic accident of this case occurred because the defendant, who was the defendant misunderstanding of the fact, overtakens the victim's car prior to the occurrence of the traffic accident of this case by shocking the left-hand side of the said car, but the defendant was not aware of the accident and proceeded without the intention of escape

In addition, annoyed injury that the victim suffered due to the traffic accident of this case cannot be assessed as an injury under the Criminal Code.

Nevertheless, the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion that the defendant had no intention to escape, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant had escaped from the scene of the accident even though he was aware of the accident in this case, so the defendant's assertion of mistake in this part is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on September 30, 2014 regarding the assertion that the victim cannot be deemed to have suffered an injury under the Criminal Act, the victim complained of symptoms, such as two pains caused by the instant traffic accident, etc. on October 2, 2014 after the occurrence of the instant traffic accident. As a result of the examination by the victim of the said accident, the victim was diagnosed as approximately 2 weeks of 5 days of the same day with “the throst, sat, and tension with no two open wounds,” and the victim was diagnosed as “the throst, sat, sat, and tension without two open wounds.” On October 7, 2014, it can be recognized that the victim was administered by 5 days of the said accident, and the said injury suffered by the victim could normally occur due to the instant traffic accident. In light of the fact that the injury cannot be assessed as an annoying condition as stipulated in Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act.