The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

[Judgment as to the Reasons for Appeal] The summary of the Reasons for Appeal is that the Defendant’s vehicle was driven by F’s bicycle, and there is no fact that F’s course was obstructed, and it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional injury of F’s course.

The summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below of this case are as follows: (a) around 18:00 on June 11, 2012, the Defendant: (b) on the national highway No. 342 prior to D in Gwangju-si; (c) while driving a vehicle owned by the Defendant, the vehicle owned by the Defendant, and was driving the E-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-Wing, the Defendant was able to turn off the way to the victim F (age 46) who was the bicycle driver, and (d) the Defendant was

After that, the victim, who had finished the vision, gets a bicycle again, and the defendant was trying to avoid the above vehicle by leaving the victim's vehicle in front of the victim's direction while driving away the bicycle again, and the defendant was trying to avoid the above vehicle by blocking the victim's course.

The Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as brain salvina, which requires treatment for about three weeks in the above manner.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged based on F’s statement and investigation report in F’s investigative agency and the court of the lower court.

There are statements and investigation reports in F's investigative agencies and the court of original instance as evidence that seem to correspond to the facts charged in this case.

First of all, the investigation report is merely a summary of conflicting arguments between the defendant and the F regarding the process of the occurrence of the instant case, and it is insufficient to accept the instant facts charged as evidence.

Next, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the F’s statement alone prevents the Defendant from driving the F’s bicycle course that the Defendant intentionally proceeded with the edge of the road.