The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that the defendant was on board the steering gear, fishing, etc., and the accident at the time of the original trial (hereinafter “instant accident”) is an accident that could not occur, not in the situation of the operation of the city, and the court below convicted him of the crime that the defendant caused the instant accident by driving a vehicle that he did not walk in the city and caused the instant accident, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the police officers called to the scene immediately after the accident occurred; (b) the Defendant appears to have given a statement to the police officer called to the effect that “on the part of the Defendant: “on the part of the Defendant: (a) how the Defendant driven the vehicle; and (b) how and how the accident occurred; and (c) according to the result of on-site inspection by the lower court, it appears that if a bypass is carried out from a sea-going vehicle in a state of vision, it would be possible for a sea-going vehicle to go back to the right side and go back to the right side; and (d) it is not impossible for a bypass the parked vehicle due to the operation of the steering gear of the sea-going vehicle to move to the right side.

B. The lower court held that the Defendant’s statement to the police officer that “if he drives the vehicle, how he drives the vehicle, and how and how the accident occurred, they may grow well under the influence of liquor” was used as evidence of conviction. The above Defendant’s statement is written in an investigation report (18 pages) prepared by a judicial police officer. As such, if the Defendant’s statement is included in the investigation report prepared by an investigative agency, it cannot be seen as different from the interrogation protocol prepared by the pertinent investigative agency, regardless of the form thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 13 January 13, 2006).