가. 사실 오인 피고인은 피고인 운전 차량으로 피해자 E을 충격한 적이 없다 (E 은 양손에 짐을 4개나 들고 우산까지 들고 있던 상태에서 횡단보도 바닥에 표시된 화살표 반대방향으로 피고인 운전 차량의 왼쪽 방면에서 오른쪽 방면으로 횡단보도를 건넜는데, 짐이 무거웠고, 또 술을 먹었기 때문에 E 혼자 피고인 운전 차량 앞쪽에서 넘어졌을 뿐임에도 피고인 운전 차량이 자신을 충격하였다면서 허위사실을 진술하고 있다.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty by recognizing the credibility of the E’s statement. (B) The sentence that the court below sentenced in the sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the appellate court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s determination recognizing the credibility of E’s statement was clearly erroneous or considerably unfair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts alleged by the Defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

① At the court of the court below, the victim E stated that “The Defendant’s driver’s vehicle cut the crosswalks, and the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle shocked the bucks of the bucks.”

The above statements correspond to the E’s statements in E’s police (Evidence 27 and 28 of the evidence records) and the Prosecutor’s Office (Evidence 116 pages and 119 pages) (Evidence 119 of the evidence records) (where the Defendant was aware that the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle, such as the E’s statement, could have avoided the shock by stop during the crosswalk, but did not avoid it.