On July 24, 2018, around 18:57, the Defendant proceeded from the north kingthythm to D, along the two-lane roads, at a speed of about 40 km to 50 km.

At the same time, the F Track car driven by the victim E (31 years old) is in the same direction, and thus, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the steering gear while complying with the lacing line.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected to observe the Track-si, and received the top part of the Track-si in front of the Kack-si in the Bluck-si, by negligence of failing to observe the Track-si.

(A) The above traffic accident (hereinafter referred to as the “instant traffic accident”). Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc. by occupational negligence, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, and at the same time, the Defendant escaped without taking necessary measures, such as stopping the said Track car to the extent that the 668,316 won of the repairing cost is damaged, and providing relief to the victim.

Judgment

The recognition of facts constituting an offense in the relevant legal doctrine criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, to such a degree that there is no room for a reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487 Decided April 28, 2011). Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides for the same.