The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant first entered the intersection, so there is no negligence on the part of the defendant, the victim was not injured, and the victim was refused to take relief measures, and there was no intention of escape.

2. Determination

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court.

(1) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant entered an intersection without signal lights to turn to the left, and the victim boarding a bicycle in the opposite part reported the Defendant.

(2) The Defendant got back within the intersection and entered the intersection, and the Defendant again proceeded in the future, thereby shocking the victim.

(3) The Defendant left the scene without leaving contact address when the victim did not answer the question after getting off from the vehicle.

(4) The victim found one of the following day following the accident and received treatment after being diagnosed as salted parts, etc. for about two weeks in need of treatment, and flicked to the degree of pain per week.

B. The Defendant, while making a left-hand turn, is deemed to have been injured by shocking the victim with the duty of care to report well the traffic situation of the front left-hand and safely drive, and left the scene without taking necessary measures.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.