At around 02:30 on September 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) driven a car at CST518 on the side of the Dong-dong, Daejeon, on the side of which there is no distinction from the front line of the JM518 car; (b) neglected to provide the front line from the apartment on the side of the new-dong, Dong-dong, Daejeon, to the apartment; (c) caused the victim D (22 years of age) to suffer damage to the left part of the E-to-face driven by the driver’s vehicle and caused the victim D to go beyond the right side of the E-to-face due to the collision with the left part of the driver’s vehicle, and caused the victim D to suffer damage to the victim, such as the son’s salt, tension, etc. requiring treatment for about two weeks; and (d) did not immediately repair the victim F (23 years of age) to the victim F, who is the passenger, and did not immediately repair the 90 million won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness DFG;

1. Partial statement of the witness H in the court;

1. Each written diagnosis and written estimate;

1. First of all, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was not in need of rescue measures because of the victim’s injury. However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the victims expressed that the police officers dispatched upon receipt of the report were “satisfing the body,” and the victims demanded insurance management by refusing to receive KRW 50,000,000 as presented by the Defendant’s side. In fact, as long as the Defendant was hospitalized for about 10 days and received the treatment of physical drugs, it constitutes “injury” in the crime of escape vehicles, it is recognized that the victim was in need of rescue measures.

Next, the defendant asserts that he did not intend to flee, but according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant did not report the fact to the police immediately after the dispute over the insurance management.