The Defendant shall move the vehicle from the scene of the accident to another place for dealing with the accident, and the Defendant’s thought to agree with the victim at the work site in the vicinity of the accident site is driving at a low speed of less than 2 km at the time of the accident site. As such, there was no criminal intent of escape at that time.

After that, in the above work site, the scene of negotiations for agreement with the victim was separated from the scene of negotiations, and there was no need to take relief measures required under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim at the time and at the site of the escape, so the crime of this case

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are revealed: ① a truck driver’s vehicle driven at a speed of 3 to 40 km per hour while driving at a speed of 3 to 40 km, ② the front right-hand head of the Defendant’s front side of the vehicle was damaged due to the above accident (the investigation record page 12); the damaged vehicle was damaged to the degree that it would be required to cover 1.4 million won for repair, such as partial replacement of the part of the back part of the cross-section and the bitle part; ③ the Defendant agreed to move the vehicle immediately after the accident, and the victim stopped at the front side of the vehicle and stopped, but the Defendant escaped without stopping to the left-hand left-hand turn from the above three-distance distance without a traffic signal called a stop; ④ the Defendant proceeding from the above three-distance to the left-hand left-hand turn, and then he again leaves the protective wall.