On May 20, 2013, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on May 21, 2013, and continued to drive the cafeteria D to the 3rd Muju Airport at the F Center.

At the same time, a passenger car owned by the victim G (65 years old) was parked at the right edge of the upper side of the densely-populated area of detached house, and therefore, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to accurately operate and drive steering and brakes by checking well the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and caused the collision of the part on the right side of the defendant's vehicle due to the negligence of driving the vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused a traffic accident that damages the above damaged vehicle by occupational negligence in the repair cost of KRW 410,793, and escaped without taking necessary measures at the site.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, as to the instant case, the evidence that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, destroyed the H SP car owned by the victim (hereinafter “victim”), and escaped after the Defendant’s destruction of the HP car owned by the victim (hereinafter “victim”), is a whiteter at the scene of the instant crime.