The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the victims may be recognized as having suffered injury due to the instant accident.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, sufficiently proven that there was an injury to the victims due to the instant traffic accident beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see

In light of the foregoing, the instant facts charged was acquitted on the ground that there is no proof of crime.

B. However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the Prosecutor based on the evidence presented by the lower court and the first instance court, including the results of factual inquiries into and answers to the head of a hospital affiliated with the Daegu-gu University, Daegu-gu University, as well as the results of reply to the head of the relevant university, the victims may sufficiently recognize the fact that they sustained injuries due to the instant accident.

The prosecutor's argument pointing this out is with merit.

1) According to the black image recorded on the surface of the instant accident, the driver of the victimized vehicle immediately operates the steering gear to avoid the Defendant’s vehicle, with a view to displaying the steering gear, and at the same time, a part of the victims aboard the victimized vehicle showing a string of the steering gear, and immediately after the collision, the Defendant’s vehicle with the damaged vehicle caused a large shock of the sound, and the damaged vehicle due to the said collision is confirmed to have shaken the entire vehicle to a considerable extent.

B. The victim E is not a sound, but a sound is not the only one in response to the question in the court below's decision that "the impact of the sound was not the one that was not the one that was different."