A. Although the alleged defendant was found to have inflicted an injury on the victim in operation of a motor vehicle, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the victim was not in operation or temporary stop at the time when the defendant injured the victim.

Considering this part of the facts charged, not guilty is found.

B. In the appellate court’s review process, there is no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a conviction, and there is no clear error in the determination of the first deliberation evidence, or there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is remarkably unfair because it is contrary to logical and empirical rules, etc., the judgment on the finding of facts in the first deliberation shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). In the judgment of innocence, the lower court: (a) requested the Defendant to leave the taxi while the Defendant was parked by moving the vehicle into three lanes after delivery; (b) reported to the police after the Defendant was reported to the passenger of the taxi; and (c) the victim has moved the passenger of the taxi to another taxi after reporting to the police; and (c) until the police arrived at the vehicle while driving the police without driving the vehicle, the victim did not take over it from the court of the lower judgment until the arrival of the police.

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone based on the statement that it is insufficient to recognize that at the time when the defendant injured the victim, the injured person was in operation of the motor vehicle or was temporarily stopped for passengers getting on or getting off the motor vehicle.

In light of this, the lower court acquitted this part of the charges.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is logical and empirical.