The defendant, around 11:00 on August 19, 2014, is proceeding from the citizen park to the children's substitute park along the two-lane road in front of the claim apartment located in the city of Busan, Jingu, Busan, along the two-lane road.

The tea has changed to one lane.

At the time, there was a vehicle driving the one lane, so there was a duty of care to inform the direction etc. in advance and to change the lane safely by keeping the traffic situation of the front and rear left.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not discover the victim's Esch Rexroth vehicle, which was proceeding in the first lane due to the negligence of changing the vehicle's vehicle's traffic situation without due consideration, and did not discover the victim's Esch Rexroth vehicle in front of the driver's seat and shocked the part of the damaged vehicle with the front door of the damaged vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant did not take necessary measures despite destroying the damaged vehicle in the repair cost of KRW 573,692 due to the above occupational negligence, and escaped as it is.

2. Determination

A. The purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on roads to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic, not to recover the physical damage of the victim. In this case, measures to be taken by the accident driver should be taken appropriately according to specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures ordinarily required in light of sound form.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1414, Mar. 14, 2013). (B)

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor is to relieve the victim or to prevent and eliminate the risks and obstacles to traffic.