The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant is a person who drives B rocketing or another car.

On February 6, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at a rate of 01:00 and proceeded at a rate of about 60km/h, depending on one lane from both sides of the climatic ginseng road in front of the climatic ginseng distance, which is located on the side of the climatic population, at a rate of 0km/h, depending on the front side of both sides.

In such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely drive by accurately operating the steering wheel and brake system.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded with the central separation zone set up in the front section of the Defendant’s vehicle driving seat.

Therefore, it was found that the repair costs incurred material damage to the viewing and did not immediately stop and take necessary measures, and escape from the match.

2. Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has not taken a measure at the time of occurrence of a traffic accident under Article 54(1) of the same Act shall be punished.

However, the purpose of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on roads to ensure safe and smooth traffic, not to recover the physical damage of victims. In this case, measures to be taken by drivers at the site should be taken appropriately according to specific circumstances, such as the contents of the accident and the degree and degree of damage, and the degree of such measures ordinarily required in light of sound form.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s act of causing harm to the life of the victim of the instant accident constitutes an act of causing harm to the victim of the instant accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do2001, Jun. 28, 2002; 2002Do201, Jun. 28, 2002).