The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the process of examining the back of the Defendant, the Defendant followed the back, and there is no shock of the victim’s right bridge as stated in the judgment of the court below.

At the time, the victim was in the vicinity of 4m to 5m in the front line of the instant taxi, and thus, 11m between the 2nd to the 3rd line and the 10m between the 2nd to the 3rd line, it cannot be said that the 2nd to the 2nd to the 3rd line.

B. Even if the Defendant shocked the victim’s bridge as stated in the facts charged, it is difficult to deem that the wife suffered from the victim reached the degree of injury.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether the taxi of this case had shocked the victim's bridge, the victim's legal statement based on conviction has credibility, and the victim's legal statement and the remaining evidence added, the defendant can sufficiently be recognized as having caused a traffic accident as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts in this part of the judgment of the court below which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

1) CCTV image 00:36 contains a form that the victim gets to the seat of the instant taxi driver by knowing the fact that the door of the Military Safety Center for Operation was locked, and the said video 01:12 contains a form that the instant taxi went to the seat of the instant taxi driver, which deviates from the front parking lot of the Military Safety Center, after the instant taxi turned to a small number of 00:12.

2) In other words, the injured party confirmed that the door of the Military Safety Center was set off, and there was time interval of about 36 seconds from the 36th time to the off of the said parking lot. During the said 36 seconds, the injured party can sufficiently move about 11m distance from the 4m to the 5m from the 11m distance to the 11m distance from the 1st place after the instant taxi.

3) On the other hand, the Defendant, contrary to the allegations in the lower court and the trial court at the investigative agency, is in India as far as the victim 1m away from the driver’s seat.