The defendant shall be innocent.

On May 29, 2014, the Defendant driven the said car at around 01:10, and continued the three-lanes of the road in front of the private distance of the considerable Gu office in the Cheongju-si as it is directly related to the Cheongju-si. The Defendant driven the said car at around 01:10, along the three-lanes of the Cheongju-si University.

At night, the Defendant was at night, and the Defendant was followed by the F Call Ban driven by the victim E (the age of 50) prior to the same direction. In such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to ensure the safety distance that can be avoided if the vehicle stops well, to ensure the safety distance that can be avoided, and to drive safely.

Nevertheless, as the Defendant was negligent in driving in an excessive vicinity and neglecting the front time, the Defendant immediately discovered the victim G (age 42) who is a customer on the back seat of the victim E, which is a customer on the back seat, and shocked the left rear part of the Defendant’s passenger car.

Ultimately, the Defendant, due to the above occupational negligence, sustained injury to the victim E, such as light salt, etc. requiring a medical treatment for about three weeks, suffered injury to the victim G, and at the same time, escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victims or informing the victims of contact information, even though the repair cost of KRW 1,503,455, such as the exchange of back pandes, etc., was damaged to the extent that the victims need to be treated for about three weeks.

2. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of violation of the Road Traffic Act (i.e., the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (i.e., the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). The lower court

If so,