The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is that the Defendant was driving at the time and place stated in the facts constituting the offense of the lower judgment, but there was no fact that the Defendant caused the accident, and such fact was

Even though it did not recognize it, it cannot be seen as having escaped.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below concerning the Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred.

1) The victim stated in a relatively detailed and consistent manner from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that “the victim was driving two-lanes of the victim’s driving car, but the driver’s driver’s vehicle has received the front part of the victim’s driving vehicle in the right side while changing the vehicle from one lane to two lanes, and immediately after the accident, she sound the horn, and drive the Defendant vehicle behind the vehicle.” The accident in this case is not a conflict between the rear side of the damaged vehicle and the latter side of the damaged vehicle, but the latter side of the vehicle, and the latter side of the damaged vehicle, and the latter side of the damaged vehicle is just a change in the vehicle. Therefore, the victim seems to have been able to be able to be able to see the vehicle relatively accurately due to the collision, and there is no fact that the victim lost the mind due to the collision in this case, and immediately after the accident, there is no possibility that the victim may confuse the vehicle in this case, in light of the fact that the vehicle will continue to drive.

3) When comparing the damaged part of the damaged vehicle with the damaged part of the damaged vehicle (the nine pages of evidence record), the damaged part of the damaged vehicle (the harming part of the evidence record 12 pages), the contact part of the damaged vehicle with the damaged vehicle, such as the discovery of a white paint of the damaged vehicle and the discovery of a yellow paint of the damaged vehicle on the damaged vehicle.

In full view of all the above circumstances, the fact that the Defendant caused the instant accident while driving the Defendant’s C Poter vehicle can be sufficiently recognized.