The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Around 10:30 on August 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) driven a D Poter truck, and tried to stop immediately to stop on the right side of the cargo vehicle and drive the 1 frame in order to rescue the victim without taking measures, such as providing rescue, etc., for the victim’s failure to perform his/her duty of charging attention at a speed of about 40km along the two-lanes. (b) The Defendant: (c) on August 8, 2013, the Defendant: (d) driven the D Poter truck on the part of the left side of the vehicle; and (d) driven the victim by driving it from around 6 weeks to the right side of the vehicle; and (d) stopped immediately to stop it; and (e) tried to escape without taking measures, such as aiding the victim.

2. Determination

(a) The term "when a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures prescribed by the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" means the case where the driver of an accident, despite having known the fact that the victim was killed or wounded, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, brings about a situation in which it is impossible to identify who caused the accident, who is the person who caused the accident, because he/she escaped from the scene of the accident, such as aiding the victim, etc. However, if it is not recognized that there was a need to take measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, taking full account of the details and details of the accident, the victim's injury and degree, the degree of negligence of the driver of the accident, the driver of the accident and the age and gender of the victim

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1483, Apr. 15, 2005). In addition, criminal facts in criminal trials are prosecutors.