A. In fact, the Defendant was not injured by the central line at the time of the instant traffic accident, and the said traffic accident occurred due to the fault of the victim D.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant was shocked by the victim D driving vehicles (hereinafter “victim”) who frighted in the center line and attempted to turn to the left at the left.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the premise of the defendant's negligence is just, and there is no error by mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant, which affected the judgment.

1) The damaged vehicle was driving in the one-lane of the two-lanes immediately preceding the instant traffic accident, and the vehicle was parked on the right right side of the said vehicle, but there was no obstacle in proceeding with the one-lane vehicle.

2) The victim D found the vehicle of the defendant who appears to have the attitude to attempt to turn to the left beyond the center line and set the damaged vehicle toward the right side to avoid this.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s vehicle’s front part, shocked the back part of the damaged vehicle’s left side.

3) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the video recorded in the black box of the damaged vehicle was operated. However, the contents of the video are consistent with the objective situation at the time of the instant traffic accident, such as the direction of the driving of the damaged vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, shock, etc., and the victim’s statement, and there is no other circumstance to suspect the credibility thereof.

B. A change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing.