The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant was aware of the occurrence of an accident under the influence of alcohol.

Therefore, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against an intentional offender is not established.

In addition, with respect to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed Measures after Accidents), victims did not have to receive any special relief measures because the degree of injury caused by the accident in this case is insignificant, and therefore, unless the defendant is obliged to do so, the above crime is not established.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the degree of damage of the Defendant’s vehicle and damaged vehicle caused by the instant accident is not insignificant, and the driver’s blood color is normal, and the walking condition is a small range of vision, and the walking condition is the degree of the walking range, as stated in the driver’s blood movement report on the Defendant, prepared after about 50 minutes from the time of the instant accident.

Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, the Defendant was in a situation where the instant accident occurred to the extent that the Defendant was unaware of the fact itself.

The Defendant could not be seen, and the Defendant was aware of the instant accident.

I seem to appear.

In addition, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act is established when the defendant gets damaged and did not take necessary measures, regardless of the victims' injury, and thereby causing traffic hazard. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of original judgment, the defendant can recognize the fact that the damaged vehicle gets out of the vehicle immediately after the accident of this case and gets out of the vehicle, thereby leading the defendant. As such, the second accident risk occurred due to the above escape and trend, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident) is established.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.