The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. As to the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the victims cannot be deemed to have suffered from the accident of this case merely because the accident of this case was merely a minor contact with the damaged vehicle without any trace of damage.

B. The Defendant did not drink on the day of the instant case with respect to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (e.g., refusal of measurement), and the Defendant’s demand for the transfer of the instant case from the police officers belonging to the J District District to undergo a fair investigation by other police stations, and thus, cannot be deemed to have refused the measurement of alcohol.

C. As to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, there is no fact that the Defendant used assault against L by a police officer, and rather, there was an unlawful performance of official duties by a police officer, such as coercion and unilaterally coercing the Defendant by making a speech as a vision, and thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is not established.

2. Determination:

A. On April 30, 2012, around 20:10 on April 30, 2012, the Defendant passed the said car on the front side of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D’s seat, the summary of this part of the facts charged against the Defendant on the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to prevent accidents by setting up an assistant in the future and safely moving back.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and received the back portion of the passenger vehicle left-hand side of the benz as the back portion of the benz car, which was driven by one-way passage from behind the benz car following the benz car.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by negligence in the above occupational negligence, caused the above E (27 years old) to the light base for the days of treatment, and caused the injured party G (27 years old) who was accompanied by the car in the above Abte test to the light base for about two weeks of treatment, and the injured party H25 years of age.