The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who is engaged in driving a motor vehicle of sod vehicle of Chives of C.

On November 17, 2016, the Defendant driven the above car at a speed of 22:00, and was in front of the apartment house in front of the transferee apartment road, and the two-lanes of the two-lanes among the three-lanes in the vice-gu apartment room.

However, since there are frequent traffic of vehicles, there was a duty of care for a person engaged in driving service to thoroughly and safely operate the vehicle at the front time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected such duty of care and entered the victim D's damage of the vehicle in the indictment from the third-lane to the second-lane. However, according to evidence, D is a substitute driver, the ownership registration of the vehicle is F. The owner appears to be G as the chief passenger (see the investigation record No. 6, 20, 30 pages). The Defendant did not discover the E-child car of the vehicle. The Defendant did not flick the part on the right side of the motor vehicle of the upper half of the motor vehicle of the flurg which the Defendant drives, with the right side of the motor vehicle of the flurg.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by occupational negligence, destroyed the car at the bar and escaped without taking necessary measures so that the repair cost equivalent to the total amount of KRW 8,806,435,00,000, would amount to KRW 8,800.

2. Determination

A. The purport of Article 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended on December 2, 2016 and enforced on June 3, 2017) is to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles on the road, and not to recover damage to the victim. In this case, measures to be taken by the driver are appropriate depending on specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage.