A. According to L’s statements made by Defendant A and I, in relation to the instant case (hereinafter “instant case”), including the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (hereinafter “the instant traffic accident”), at the Cheongju District Court’s Young-dong Branch 2012 Goju Branch 122, and the instant case (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”), Defendant A was sent to the scene of the instant traffic accident (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”), it is recognized that there was no fact that Defendant B met Defendant B at the site immediately after the instant traffic accident or told Defendant B about the insurance handling of the said traffic accident.

B. In addition, a criminal judgment (Cheongju District Court 2013No232) finalized on the foregoing preceding case was recognized that “the police officer first arrived at the scene after the Defendant A left the scene of a traffic accident and arrived at the scene thereafter.”

C. Therefore, on different premise, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the probative value of the final and conclusive criminal judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Around 16:00 on June 27, 2012, Defendant A asked Defendant A to the effect that “B talked about the insurance management of traffic accidents immediately after the traffic accident, and I told that I would have come to a public telephone,” and then going to leave the accident site.”

However, since the defendant was contacted by B I and went away from the scene of the accident before arrival at the scene of the accident, immediately after the accident, B shall go through or go to B around the scene of the accident.