The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not face the victim D with the defendant's vehicle, and even if there was a domestic house, the victim cannot be deemed to suffer bodily injury. Therefore, the part of the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is not guilty. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension
2. On October 9, 2012, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case, the Defendant started from the Seo-gu, Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si, and proceeded with about five kilometers in the distance of approximately 0.089% from the blood alcohol concentration to the second ri-dong market in the north-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Ulsan-si, while driving the said vehicle at a level of 0.089% under the influence of alcohol concentration in the blood alcohol concentration. The driver of the instant case had a duty of care to prevent the accident of the front, left, and right and right and right and left the front, while driving the vehicle at the same time and driving the vehicle at the same time and driving the vehicle at the right and driving the vehicle at the same time, the Defendant continued to suffer from the above kneo-dong market due to the negligence of the victim while taking care of the victim's kneo-dong in front of the above kneo-dong market.
3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the traffic accident occurrence report and the fact-finding report prepared at the time, after the defendant departs from the victim’s ozones, and the defendant is kneeee of the victim at a point of 100 meters above.