The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the criminal intent of injury, the Defendant did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, but did not err by driving the instant vehicle with the knowledge that the victimized person was able to attach “the instant vehicle” to B-cracked vehicles owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), thereby causing injury to the victim, such as brain-dead, etc.

Rather, it is nothing more than the victim's injury with knowledge that the instant vehicle is in progress, which would be unreasonable to attach it.

2) As to the admissibility of criminal video CDs, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense as above on the basis of the victim’s criminal video CD (the 33th page of the investigation record) and convicted the Defendant of the instant charges, but it is reasonable to view that the said criminal video CDs cannot be ruled out that the possibility that the victim voluntarily duplicating and submitting only the parts favorable to himself/herself cannot be ruled out.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the remaining charges of this case, which found that only the instant criminal video CD and the victim’s unilateral statement was somewhat less favorable. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of evidence of video recordings or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the lecture attendance order of 40 hours, the community service order of 200 hours) against the illegal accused in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) As to the admissibility of evidence of criminal video CDs, the declaration of consent to evidence under Article 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act may be revoked or withdrawn before the completion of the examination of evidence. However, once the examination of evidence is completed, the consent of the first instance court cannot be revoked in the second instance, and the consent of evidence is obtained after the examination of evidence is completed.