2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether the victim was injured are injured, namely, ① the victim submitted a diagnosis certificate (Evidence No. 29 of the evidence record) to the effect that the victim suffered injuries to brain salvin, salvinitis, salvinitis, salvinitis, and alvinal salvine requiring treatment for about two weeks; ② there is no circumstance to doubt particularly credibility in the process of issuing the above diagnosis; ② On-site photographs (Evidence No. 14 of the evidence record) of the traffic accident in this case, there was a damage to the backer of the math vehicle driven by the victim due to the traffic accident in this case. Considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the shock level of the victim was insignificant at that time, the victim was not injured

The defendant's allegation in this part is without merit, since annoyed employment, to the extent that the victim's injury cannot be evaluated as "injury" as provided by Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, is extremely difficult to be regarded as an upper part to the extent that it does not need to be treated.

B. Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that "the case where a vehicle causing a traffic accident is covered by insurance or mutual aid" subject to special cases such as criminal punishment under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to the case where "the vehicle that caused the traffic accident" is covered by the above insurance, etc. or "the driver of the vehicle" is covered by the insurance, etc. related to the operation of the vehicle, etc., the case where the right to prompt and accurate compensation for the total amount of compensation for the traffic accident under

Supreme Court Decision 2012. 201