There is an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below which found guilty of the facts charged in this case based on the statement of D without credibility.

2. The victim D consistently states from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court that he/she suffered bodily injury, such as knee tear tear, after the occurrence of vision due to the traffic of the Defendant and the vehicle.

D On the following day of June 23, 2012 in which the instant case occurred, the hospital received medical treatment and was issued with a written diagnosis of injury, and the statement of injury diagnosis written by the doctor J (on the side) corresponds to D’s statement and other circumstances acknowledged by evidence are credibility in D’s statement in full view of the fact that the statement of injury diagnosis written by the doctor J (on the side) corresponds to D’s statement.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined in the original trial including D’s statement, the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim D can be sufficiently recognized as stated in the original judgment.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.