beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In light of the statement made by the driver E of the other vehicle, the vehicle photograph taken after the accident, the occurrence of the accident, etc., it can be seen that the defendant was not injured because the accident in this case did not have any shock or was very minor.
In addition, there is a case where there is no verification by X-ray alone, and the Defendant did not comply with the request to take a CT photograph for more detailed diagnosis even at the time of receiving the treatment in the hospital after going beyond the prior to the instant case. In light of the fact that the Defendant complained of at least a sense of view and received continuous treatment within a considerable period of time prior to the instant case, the Defendant appears to have failed to discover even if a marbris had occurred before the instant case, but failed to perform the precise diagnosis.
In addition, since the defendant's personal phone at the time of the case does not seem to have a big change from the attitude while driving, the body does not move to the degree of the accident of this case due to the shock of the degree of the accident of this case according to the purpose of the traffic accident analysis report of this case.
must be viewed.
Therefore, the defendant's statement that he suffered bodily injury from the body face caused by the traffic accident of this case is not reliable in violation of the common sense and the empirical rule, and the defendant was fully aware that he received insurance money from the damaged company due to the weather accident of this case and acquired the insurance money from the damaged company even though he had not been diagnosed with the body in the front of this case since he did not face entirely due to the face of this case and suffered bodily injury from the body part in the front of this case. However, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Examining the evidence of this case in detail in light of the record, the court below submitted it to the prosecutor for reasons as stated in its holding.