The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) argues that the Defendant was the person who caused the traffic accident at the time of the instant accident, and the Defendant reported the boom to the victim, and reported the boom on the following day, and made the boom to be dealt with, and returned to her home because the victim was aware of it.

In other words, the defendant did not know that he had no intention to escape, and did not recognize the fact that the victim was injured.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the court below, and the court below found the Defendant guilty of each of the charges of this case on the grounds that the Defendant’s partial statement in the court of the court below and the investigative agency and the witness D’s statement in the court of the court below

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below's decision to the same purport is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant, as otherwise alleged by the defendant.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

① The witness D of the lower court, from an investigative agency to the lower court’s court, asked the Defendant as to whether the Defendant was fine or not, after the occurrence of the instant accident, by checking whether the Defendant was guilty of the collision between the Defendant and the Defendant. The Defendant’s physical appearance is as follows.

The answer was made.

The defendant asked the vehicle whether he was a black box or not, and did not answer the vehicle because he was not a black box. The defendant said that he was self-employed because he was not a black box.

at the time;