2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim’s statement that appeared in the original court as a witness and testified that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case, is consistent and reliable, and ② the victim’s statement was accompanied by the damaged vehicle.

E, immediately after the instant case, he taken a taxi of the Defendant, who is going to leave the vehicle’s down from the vehicle immediately after the instant case, to leave the vehicle’s road to the camera of the mobile phone, and if the Defendant simply takes a bath to each other and takes the dispute, he would have failed to perform the above actions to secure evidence. ③ He appears in the court of the lower court that the Defendant was able to drive the vehicle in the victim’s vehicle at the defective bridge, and even though it did not seem to have contacted the vehicle, he was able to take a sound when the vehicle was faced with the vehicle.

In full view of the fact that F, a person who has no special relation with the defendant or the victim and who has witness the case, could not have made a false statement unfavorable to the defendant, the F, a credibility of the F, and the fact that the defendant was also aware of the fact that the damaged vehicle was born at the time of the instant case, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant damaged the damaged vehicle by launchinging the damaged vehicle. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts pointed out by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.