The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the injury in this case occurred when a taxi, which was a preceding string in the vehicle (Cgallon) of the victim's vehicle (G), stops rapidly in the front of the vehicle (Cgallon), and the vehicle of the defendant is not caused by shocking the victim's vehicle. Thus, there is no relation between the defendant's occupational negligence and the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case.

Nevertheless, the court below which found the defendant guilty has erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the defendant: ① the vehicle of the defendant was taken in a scam image of the part of the victim's vehicle in front of the right line; ② The victim's vehicle was changed to the front line of the victim's vehicle and stopped later due to a signal change during about 13 seconds, and the defendant's vehicle stopped later. The defendant's vehicle was shocked from the front line of the victim's vehicle to move the victim's vehicle to the front line, and unlike the defendant's assertion, the circumstance that the victim's vehicle was scambling in order to avoid the scam of the front line of the defendant's vehicle or the front line, ③ the victim's vehicle was taken in front of the victim's vehicle, and the victim's vehicle was scambling from the investigative agency to the defendant's oral testimony, and the victim's specific testimony was consistent with the victim's testimony by the investigative agency.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see it, it is reasonable to see that the victim suffered the injury of this case by leaving the victim's vehicle due to the defendant's occupational negligence.