The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The grounds for appeal of this case are that the victim intentionally fell into the center line, and the defendant fulfilled his duty of care as a driver at the time of the accident, and since the defendant's vehicle was merely a part of the victim's body, the defendant's vehicle was guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, among the facts charged in this case, although the victim cannot be deemed to have suffered an injury, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases

2. The judgment is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. According to each image, etc. of photographs attached to investigation reports (the victim and on-site investigation as to investigation command, etc.), the defendant intentionally occupied the road of this case to the effect that "the victim would do not do so," and immediately after the accident of this case, the victim tolded the victim to the effect that "the victim would do not do so." However, the victim walked the road of this case relatively consistent from the investigative agency to the court below to the court below, and stated to the purport that the defendant would not have been able to walk up the road of this case at the time of the accident or immediately after the accident, and that the victim did not talk with the defendant. The victim's each injury and degree of the victim's statement after the accident of this case also correspond to the victim's above statement. The road of this case is not the road of this case, but the road of this case that the victim could walk in the direction of pedestrians, and the road of this case is less than the road of this case.