The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of an injury requiring 8 weeks’ medical treatment due to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, it is not caused by the instant traffic accident.

The victim was not injured due to the traffic accident in this case, so it was not necessary to take relief measures.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below as a whole based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, namely, the victim's arms, who used drinking measuring devices, are entering the vehicle through the window of the defendant's vehicle in order to refuse a drinking test, depart from the vehicle as they are, and make the victim go beyond the road, and go beyond the victim's growth, etc. with the rear wheels of the above vehicle, and the defendant intentionally caused the traffic accident. As such, in general, it seems that the victim could have been sufficiently aware that the victim could suffer injury in this situation. Even if the victim had received medical treatment due to the pain or the sobathrosis before the occurrence of the accident in this case, even if the victim could have affected the injury caused by the traffic accident in this case, but it is difficult to view that the injury suffered by the victim was solely caused by the king evidence in light of the contents and circumstances of the traffic accident in this case, the victim did not sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant suffered the injury as stated in the judgment below.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. The victim on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing is the victim.