2. The witness E makes a statement in the court of the original judgment that the victim walked on the road side of the traffic accident as stated in the judgment below. The vehicle used to get the victim to cross the road, and look at the vehicle again at the driver's seat and the victim, and after that, G saw as friendly on the front side of the driver's seat. The witness F did not witness the traffic accident as stated in the judgment of the court below, but he did not witness the traffic accident as stated in the judgment of the court of the court below, but sees E, etc. at the time of the accident, he saw the victim to drop off from the driver's seat and tried to get off from G. The above witness made a statement to the same purport at the investigative agency, and the contents of each of the above statements are the same, after the occurrence of the accident, the order of the defendant and G's behavior, the increase of the defendant's appearance, etc., and it is consistent and consistent with each other without any consistency.

Therefore, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the above statement evidence, the defendant can be recognized as having inflicted bodily injury upon the victim while driving a vehicle in which he had inflicted bodily injury as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts in the judgment below which found the defendant guilty.

In addition, the degree of damage recovery against the victim, the details and details of the crime, the age, character and behavior, environment, etc. of the defendant.