The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is that the Defendant was stopping on the lux road, but did not know at all that he had contacted the taxi that was stopped later. The victim, who was a taxi engineer, made the string the driver's seat of the Defendant go through a newspaper engineer, etc., leading the Defendant to mistake the string of the vehicle while living in the lux, and did not have a criminal intent to escape. As such, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to escape.

In addition, the instant accident is that the Defendant’s vehicle’s rearer contacted the front part of the victim vehicle three times, and the accident was insignificant and thus the victim did not suffer any injury, and the victim received medical treatment only once at one Council room or after the lapse of 12 days from the date of the accident. Therefore, it is difficult to view the victim’s injury as “injury” under the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined as follows: (a) the victim's taxi was behind the Defendant's driver's vehicle, i.e., e., shocked three times in total, and the body of the above taxi was shakened when shocked, and the victim resisted toward the seat of the Defendant's driver's vehicle; (b) it appears that the Defendant was aware of the accident in light of the victim's resistance to the seat of the Defendant's driver's vehicle; (c) the victim was driving the vehicle at a sudden speed while the vehicle was under the Defendant's driver's seat, while driving the vehicle; and (d) the victim was receiving physical therapy from the victim's clinic around October 10, 2015 after the victim was identified as the victim was receiving insurance.