The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misunderstanding the facts, the Defendant was able to feel knee the knee of the E vehicle and made a statement to the investigation agency about the damage.

Even if the E-vehicle did not match the defendant's knee, it may kneeee in the process of avoiding the vehicle of E, and it may be possible to make a statement without clarifying the idea that the defendant should attach E, so the defendant has no intention to do so.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, the Defendant may recognize the facts reported to the investigation agency for the purpose of having a criminal punishment imposed upon E even if the Defendant did not have been subject to a traffic accident, and the Defendant’s intention without fault is also acknowledged.

1) E consistently states in the investigative agency and the court of original instance that “A defendant has consistently met the vehicle in his own vehicle, which he did not shock the defendant by using the vehicle.” According to video data (S1 CD), as seen below, E conforms to the above statement since there is no shocking face by the defendant with the vehicle, and it is difficult to see that E has made a false statement while taking charge of the punishment for perjury in light of E’s investigative agency and the court of original instance, as well as E’s attitude of statement in the court of original instance, etc.