The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and mistake, the Defendant merely saw the back of the damaged vehicle, even though she was flicked, and the victim suffered bodily injury due to the instant accident.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, the Defendant was unable to be aware of the shocking fact of the damaged vehicle at the time of the instant accident, and thus there was intention.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds of the victim's statement in the court below below below.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, the observation of protection, the 40 hours of compliance driving, community service work 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The degree of formation of a conviction for finding a guilty guilty in a criminal trial should be such that there is no reasonable doubt as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles. However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts without rationality. The rejection of a conviction by causing a suspicion of having probative value without reasonable grounds is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1335, Sept. 13, 1994). The mere fact that the statement of a witness is consistent with its main part, such as where the statement of a witness is inconsistent with its main part, it does not unreasonably deny the credibility of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008). Whether the defendant inflicts an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case, thereby complying with the logical or empirical rule in relation to the victim’s testimony or examination of witness.