On August 9, 2011, the Defendant driven the said car at a speed of about 40 km per hour from the entrance of the rest area of the rest area of the small-sized highway, which is located in the fluent fluence of the original fluence, to the rest area of the rest area at a speed of about 40 km.

At the time, there is a vehicle entering a rest area at night, and in such a case, there was a duty of care to check the safety of the course by reducing speed and keeping the front door well and prevent accidents by driving.

Nevertheless, due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driving, the part behind the victim’s driving EM 520 car driven in the same direction was followed by the Defendant’s driving.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by such occupational negligence, committed an injury to the victim D, such as catitis, which requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment, sustained injury to the victim F of the above damaged vehicle, such as catitis, which requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment. At the same time, even though the repair cost of the said vehicle, which is owned by the victim, damaged approximately KRW 1,563,00, it did not immediately stop and escape without taking measures such as providing relief to the victim.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant asserted that he did not recognize the instant accident from an investigative agency to the instant court and denied the criminal intent of escape.

B. In light of the damaged level of the Defendant’s vehicle and the victim’s vehicle, there is doubt that the Defendant could have known the instant accident at the time, but, in other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, namely, G’s statutory statement, the Defendant stopped under the direction of police officers G at the scene immediately after the instant accident occurred and stops to G.