The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In order to protect the victim under the influence of mistake of facts, the defendant only left clothes in order to protect the victim under the influence of mistake, and there is no fact that the victim was pushed away.

Since the victim's statement is inconsistent with the time of the occurrence of a traffic accident confirmed through the traffic accident confirmation board and CCTV image, the court below's judgment of conviction against the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 2 million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In light of the following facts that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake, and the circumstances that can be known therefrom, the court below is justified in finding that the victim's statement was credibility, and that the defendant was injured by the victim due to the injury inflicted on March 31, 2019, on the basis of the victim's statement, injury diagnosis report, etc. on the basis of the victim's statement, injury diagnosis report, etc., which was damaged by the victim's injury requiring two-day medical treatment.

According to CCTV images installed in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H on March 31, 2019, it is confirmed that the victim himself/herself suffers after he/she got over the front part of the white booming vehicle, when he/she got over the back or she sits down the victim by leaving the victim on his/her job on the back on the back of the white booming vehicle at around 20:50.

Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the defendant's statement that he/she was in custody of clothes to protect the victim under the influence of alcohol is inconsistent with objective evidence.

The victim stated in the court below that "the victim has entered a telephone with her husband outside of the court room," and the victim was defective to the defendant, and the defendant was pushed away from the place where the victim was living." This statement is consistent with the CCTV images as seen earlier.

The victim is the date of the occurrence of the case.