The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, since the shock level of the Defendant’s vehicle and the victim’s vehicle at the time was insignificant, the Defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim, and even if so, the victim sustained any injury.

Even if this is considered to be a minor damage to the extent that it cannot be evaluated as an injury under the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal.

In regard to this, the court below held that the facts of injury can be recognized in full view of the evidence in its holding.

In light of this, the defendant was convicted of this part of the facts charged.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances can be acknowledged.

① 피해자는 원심 법정에서 당시 사고로 “ 무릎을 찧었고, 앞에 있는 서류들이 다 쏟아졌다.

Therefore, there was no big number of people, but there was a back knee knee knee knee knee knee.

“On the day of the accident, she went to the regular department, and thereafter, she was confirmed to be invaded and fest in one Council member in the vicinity of the house.”

(2) Unlike the statement in an investigative agency, the victim did not face head at the time in the court of original instance.

Restatementd and stated.

However, the victim's explanation about the circumstances in which the statement was made once is sufficiently understandable, and the contents about other bodily injury are specific and consistent from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, and its credibility is recognized.

(3) A doctor who treated a victim on the date of an accident.