2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim had no damage to the damaged vehicle prior to the instant case; and (ii) the victim reported the details of the first damage at the court of the court below, and subsequently stated that the victim at the bottom of the driver’s seat was erroneous in the lower court’s seat on the part of the 28th page of the evidence record (the bottom of the Raloter and the driver’s seat was the lower court’s seat.)

In full view of the facts as follows: (a) the Defendant confirmed the details of additional damage to the police; (b) the Defendant returned to the surrounding area of the damaged vehicle from 18:30:59 to 18:39; and (c) the Defendant sent back to the front offender and the Raditer; (b) around 18:37:28, the victim’s vehicle is shaking by external shock; (c) the image of the Defendant’s moving from the rear after the front of the repair estimate is confirmed; (d) the front offender of the damaged vehicle on the expected repair estimate; and (e) the repair cost of KRW 3,175,000 is expected in total at the cost of the right-hand repair map.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant, and the above assertion by the defendant 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.