The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that there was a shock of the vehicle by the victim D even though the defendant driven the vehicle without sufficient shock of the victim D, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the victim's statement at the police stage (the victim's statement is not known; the victim's statement is described in the content of the statement; the victim's damage is specified in the content of the statement; the content of the statement is consistent with a considerable part of the ctv video and its situation; and in particular, it can be admitted as evidence pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it appears at the parking lot for the time of the accident to work on the day of the accident, it is confirmed that the cctv image and the rear door even were ctv image of the management office, and the accident was caused after the confirmation of the management office's ctv image and the estimate of the victim's vehicle (the victim's statement was made before and after the front of the accident), and the victim's false statement did not appear to have been paid to the defendant as the criminal of the crime of this case.