The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is that the Defendant did not shock the damaged vehicle as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and the damage caused by the damaged vehicle is irrelevant to the Defendant’s act.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the judgment on the grounds of appeal, the following circumstances are recognized.

① The facts charged in the instant case reveal that the Defendant, while moving back at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, collisions over the front part of the victim’s vehicle, thereby damaging property that requires approximately KRW 1850,000 for repair cost due to occupational negligence.

② The cost of repair claimed by the victim is 1.850,00 won in total, including vehicle number plates, liftss, and repair costs at the bottom of the spread. Of these, the cost of repairing the vehicle number plates is about KRW 15,00, and the victim also stated that the repair cost of the number plates is not a major negorithm in the lower court’s court.

③ The Defendant and the victim discussed whether to agree on one million won after the accident, and eventually did not reach an agreement.

④ At the time of the backing of the Defendant’s vehicle, the rear gateer of the Defendant’s driving vehicle and the front gateer of the victim vehicle did not conflict with each other. The high height of the two vehicles is similar to that of the gateer of the damaged vehicle, thereby causing damage to the part other than the gate of the damaged vehicle.

⑤ The lower court also determined that there was no evidence to acknowledge the portion of “repair cost of KRW 1850,00,000 among the facts charged.” However, the facts constituting an offense were deemed to have damaged “property requiring repair costs.”

In full view of the above facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., witness at the time of the instant case, stating that the Defendant’s vehicle and the damaged vehicle had consistently contacted at the time of the back of the Defendant, and that the damaged vehicle had been blicked due to the shock, and ② the vehicle number plate of the damaged vehicle is its location or height.