The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant stopped immediately after the instant accident occurred, and opened a glass door and was fine for the victim; and (b) the Defendant was fine for the victim.

Since the defendant runs away from the scene of a defect, it cannot be said that the defendant runs away.

In addition, since the personal damage of the victim was very insignificant due to the accident in this case, there was no need to take relief measures against the victim.

The defendant's defense counsel argues to the effect that there is no defendant's occupational negligence on the occurrence of the instant accident through the statement at the fifth trial date, the summary of the oral argument on December 9, 2015, and the statement at the fifth trial date. However, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as it is asserted after the lapse of the period not exceeding the deadline for filing an appeal. In addition, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has caused the instant traffic accident by occupational negligence, and the above defense

2. The following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the judgment of the court below and the trial court, namely, ① the victim consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, to the extent that “the defendant is rapidly at a speed and has left the right part of the victim’s right part due to the rapid gap between the defendant and the right part, and it was difficult for the victim to immediately see the speed of the defendant’s vehicle as soon as possible after the accident and in the future.

With the shock of the accident, the driver gets a contact with Defendant vehicle.

After stopping, the defendant confirmed only the gap between the defendant's vehicle and did not get off the vehicle.

(2) The Defendant was investigated by the police and the prosecution on two occasions, and was aware of the fact that the accident occurred due to the noise that was caused by the accident at the time of the instant accident and the contact between them.

After the accident, a short stop is unfolded only after the accident.