beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment is publicly announced.
Reasons
1. At around 15:40 on May 12, 2016, the Defendants: (a) while working for a heart in front of the H village located in Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, G, there was a serious accident in which Defendant B’s bridge was kidd by Defendant C during the Egracing season, which was driven by Defendant C and the J, and Defendant B’s bridge was kid; (b) at the remainder of the work site where the aforementioned B’s medical expenses, etc. were anticipated to occur; and (c) the said B’s cargo car was planned to handle the automobile insurance treatment expenses, etc.
Accordingly, around May 13, 2016, at around 15:02 on May 13, 2016, Defendant A sent a telephone to the Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., a private person who purchased the automobile insurance of the Lpoter freight car owned by the above A, with the call from around 10:00 on May 12, 2016 at the Cheongju-si G farm in the petition-gu, Cheongju-si.
A accepted an accident to the effect that “A’s L Poter cargo vehicles and the rear part of B’s N Poter cargo vehicles owned by the wife M, which were parked in the lower part, caused an accident.”
Defendant
C, on May 17, 2016, after conducting on-site investigations, around 16:30, around 16:5.17., 2016, C returned the situation of the occurrence of the accident, and explained the circumstances of the accident, such as the receipt of the insurance company accident, as if he had not directly observed the accident, to P and Q of O and staff Co., Ltd. and Q.
Defendant
B On May 20, 2016, the R Hospital, which was hospitalized in around around the day of May, 2016, explained the situation of the occurrence of the accident to P, like the purpose of the insurance company accident receipt.
On July 13, 2016, at around 13:30, the Defendants participated in the on-site investigation conducted in the said accident site in the presence of the insurance company employees and police officers, and Defendant A showed the situation of the accident and the situation of the accident, and Defendant B displayed the impact on the back part of the cargo vehicle of the later cargo.
However, in fact, Defendant B's accident is owned by Defendant C, which was driven by I and J due to their prosperity.