The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding or legal principles: (a) the Defendant did not recognize the occurrence of a traffic accident; (b) the Defendant did not have any intention to “domination” or “non-measures after the accident”; and (c) the Defendant had a duty to take relief measures in light of the fact that the degree of injury the victims suffered

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, 1) Do Governor and the argument that there was no intention to take action after the accident, the defendant also asserted as to this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail by making a detailed decision on the decision (No. 6 side to No. 4 side). When comparing the above decision of the court below with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (as to the above decision of the court below, only a minor scam in the vehicle operated by the defendant, and only a minor scams in the vehicle operated by the defendant, and the defendant's assertion that the noise of the defendant's vehicle driven by the defendant who lost most of the left scambing power is less likely to cause the shock of traffic accident, considering the size of the traffic accident as set by the court below and the degree of damage, the defendant did not recognize the occurrence of the traffic accident.

It is reasonable to see that there is a mistake or misunderstanding of the facts alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) As to the assertion that the duty to take relief measures has not occurred, the outcome of the ideology suffered by the victim cannot be assessed as “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act.