The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The evidence supporting the fact that the victim F suffered an injury under the Criminal Act is entirely submitted by the victim F. However, according to the statement of the injury submitted by the victim F. However, according to the lower court’s court’s testimony of the accident of H and F in the lower court, and reply to the fact-finding with respect to NNa, Ja, and K hospital that the victim F was treated, and reply to the fact-finding with respect to reputation vehicles that received the damaged vehicle driven by F., the victim F suffered an injury under the Criminal Act only by the above diagnosis.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

B. Even if the injured party F suffers, the injured party can be assessed as piracy under criminal law.

This constitutes a very minor injury that does not require relief measures.

2. In the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant, instead of mentioning the same assertion, and the lower court rejected the said assertion, and subsequently stated in detail the grounds for the determination on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel.

Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment was justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

A. At the time of the instant case as to whether the injury under the Criminal Act constitutes an injury, the Defendant committed a collision with the left part of the damaged vehicle parked on the right side of the vehicle, and the background of the accident does not seem to be unfasible, in light of the circumstances of the accident, the Defendant’s driving vehicle, etc., and the damaged vehicle, including the Defendant’s driving vehicle, also left a large amount of repair costs (Evidence No. 33,53,59 of the evidence record), and the victim F saw noise from the lower court’s court to the nearest level while leaving the whiteer, and was hospitalized at the hospital in this name.

In fact, the victim F was hospitalized at J Hospital on November 14, 2015, which is the date of the accident, but discharged on November 17, 2015, and the victim F was discharged on November 17, 2015.