The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the fact that the defendant was unable to specifically state the circumstances of the accident, and according to the accident research report prepared by the head of the legal science research institute, the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though the defendant was fully aware of the fact that the defendant reported false accident, is not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant: (a) stayed a white sports vehicle that was parked on September 20, 2017 without viewing the vehicle that was parked later; (b) confirmed that the Defendant did not receive any contact but did not request the payment of the automobile insurance money.

It is a question whether such contents are false reports.

First of all, V, the owner of benz car, stated that the vehicle was destroyed by the front part of the vehicle because it was consistently found in the investigative agency and the court below's trial, and that the vehicle was destroyed by the front part of the vehicle, while she was frighted in the front part of the vehicle, and the telephone number was used to deal with the insurance by making the phone using the phone number.

Such a statement of V conforms to the defendant's assertion as a substitute.

According to the accident research report submitted by H, a victim, to the president of the legal research institute, it is stated that the full damage of benz's car is deemed to have occurred from other accidents unrelated to shock on the back of the benz car by comparing the ground level, damaged size, and form of damage on the damaged part of the benz car and the benz car.

However, according to the field photographs in which the accident of this case occurred, the above accident research report is also about the height of roads and parking lots.