The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 12,000,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant was not guilty.

There is an error in the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. According to the testimony of the victim D, the accused's complaint party, and the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are acknowledged.

① On December 11, 2009, the instant car owned by D had a traffic accident that conflict with the Ecubed vehicle driven by N.

D, who was on board the instant car due to this accident, sustained injuries that require approximately 4 weeks, approximately 2 weeks by F, approximately 13 weeks by G, and approximately 16 weeks by J.

After the accident, E and F were identified as the driver of the instant vehicle immediately after the accident, and there was a dispute over the failure to drive each other, D was the owner of the vehicle and the rear passenger at the time of the accident, and therefore, D was a major witness on the confirmation of the driver.

② At the initial stage of the investigation, D made a statement that “E driven an accident vehicle and did not have a driver at the intermediate stage” after the police investigation was conducted on February 11, 2010.

Then, E was investigated into driving of the instant vehicle and prosecuted for the instant case, including the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death and Injury resulting from D Driving) at the Sung-nam Branch of Suwon District Court, and D was present as a witness of the instant case on July 6, 2010 and testified to the effect that “When the Defendant calls to the witness and calls to the witness and then E is a driver, he would collapse (the witness). We have suffered damage in prison. There was a fact that F was a statement that he would have been able to live as a driver (hereinafter referred to as “the forward statement”), and that “the Defendant argued to the effect that F was driving the witness at the house of Suwon to the effect that F was driven by the witness at the house of Suwon (hereinafter referred to as “BA statement”).”