Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”) is acquitted. Of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is engaged in driving CK7 automobiles.

On March 11, 2012, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on March 22, 2012, and proceeded in the direction of the distance of postal administration in the direction of the D Hospital on the Han-gu, Ulsan-gu.

In such cases, the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by accurately operating the steering gear and steering system of a motor vehicle, complying with the central line and the line of vehicles, and thereby driving the motor vehicle safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not accurately operate the steering direction and operating operation system of the above vehicle, and shocked the retaining wall in the right direction of the vehicle into the front part of the above vehicle, followed by the victim E (35 years old) who was waiting in the opposite lane beyond the central line, and shocked the front part of the vehicle in the front part of the F Spoter which was driven by the victim E (35 years old) who was waiting in the opposite lane, and shocked the front headlight and the even parts of the Hpoter's left part of the vehicle driven by the victim G (39 years old) who was driving on the same lane.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by occupational negligence, destroyed the car in the above SPP area equivalent to KRW 1,583,250 per repair cost, and destroyed the above SP vehicle to repair the freight amounting to KRW 2,907,420, and at the same time, destroyed the light climatic salt, etc. requiring approximately two weeks medical treatment to the victim E, and suffered injury to the victim G by the climatic salt, etc. requiring approximately two weeks medical treatment, but failed to immediately stop and take necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim.

2. As to the assertion and determination, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant left the same spot after immediately stopping and taking relief measures, so that they do not have the criminal intent of non-measures after escape or accident.

Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.