The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant is as follows: ① A traffic accident occurred in violation of the safety distance for the driver of the vehicle after the violation of the Defendant’s duty to maintain safety distance and the method of driving ahead; thus, the Defendant’s vehicle did not shock the damaged vehicle; ② the Defendant immediately stopped at the scene of the accident; ② the Defendant immediately stopped at the scene of the accident, but immediately fell under the toilet for about eight minutes after the accident; and the driver and the passenger of the victimized vehicle claimed the pain or caused human damage.

In fact, there was no fact that the vehicle was naturally unloaded from the vehicle, and the vehicle was examined by putting the hand on the part of the vehicle, and the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was aware of the identity of the driver of the vehicle by photographing the number plate of the vehicle of the defendant on the mobile phone. The defendant thought that the accident occurred due to the other party's negligence, and that human damage was inflicted on the part of the vehicle.

There was no room to doubt that there was a need to take relief measures at the time of the accident or that the defendant had an intention to flee.

Although it cannot be said, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant, while driving the defendant's vehicle, changed the vehicle line without looking at the front side and the left side of the vehicle, thereby receiving the back part of the damaged vehicle's right side with the left part of the vehicle. This is sufficiently recognized that the driver of the damaged vehicle and the victims of the damaged vehicle suffered injury, such as receiving treatment at the hospital.

In addition to the above facts of recognition, the victim actively expressed that relief measures are unnecessary on the part of the victim in this case or there is no need to take other emergency measures, objective and clear at the time immediately after the accident.