Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged that the defendant is guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, failed to give prior notice of the change of the vehicle line by direction, etc. when driving a vehicle as stated in the judgment of the court below, and due to the negligence of entering the vehicle into the one-lane only without thoroughly examining whether there is a vehicle in progress at the one-lane to change, and the damaged vehicle, which was in progress, attempted to avoid a conflict with the vehicle of the defendant and caused an accident to receive a protective wall installed at the center of the center, without taking any measures to avoid a conflict with the vehicle of the defendant.

Although the Defendant alleged that he was unaware of the fact that the above accident occurred, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware of the occurrence of the accident, since the Defendant’s allegation is without merit, in light of the location of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the accident, the degree of shock at the time of the accident, the background of the accident, the situation of the accident, the conversation between the Defendant and the passenger recorded in the black box, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just in holding that the defendant suffered an injury to the victim by violating the duty of care in the course of performing his duties, and at the same time destroyed the victim's car, and there is no error of misunderstanding legal principles or misunderstanding

3. The appeal by the defendant is in conclusion.