교통사고처리특례법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the investigation agency of the victim of the grounds for appeal and the prosecutor, including the statement at the court of the court below, etc., it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant suffered bodily injury, such as knee knee knee knee kne knee kne knee kne knee kne knee knee kne
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case.
2. As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, the victim’s investigative agency and the court below’s statement and the statement of the request for investigation cooperation prepared by H are indicated.
However, until the investigation agency and the court of the trial, the defendant consistently stated that the victim was not faced with the car driven by the defendant.
E also testified in the court below that the victim did not face the above car, and the other witness F also stated that the police did not directly face the above car, but the person who was on the side of the victim showed that he was the victim.
In the medical examination report, the victim is indicated as being injured, such as knee, knee, knee, gale, hume, shoulder shre, and tension. In light of the health insurance benefit content of the victim, it is difficult to conclude that the victim suffered injury in the medical examination report since 2007 by continuously receiving medical treatment from a member of the National Assembly or a member of the National Assembly, etc., in the light of the health insurance benefit content of the victim, it is difficult to conclude that the victim suffered injury in the medical examination report of the injury by continuously receiving medical treatment from a member of the National Assembly or a member of the National Assembly, etc. in the case.
Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, the “car is faced with”.