The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who is engaged in driving Cex vehicles.

On November 5, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 23:05, and driven the front road of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D at the speed from the tri-distance from the entrance side of the ditch to the end of the tri-distance.

A person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to confirm the safety of the course and to drive the motor vehicle safely by reducing speed and by properly examining the right and the right of the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and continued to go on the right side of the road.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by occupational negligence as above, destroyed the above chemical group to have approximately KRW 521,00,000 of the repair cost, and escaped without immediately stopping and taking necessary measures.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on the road, thereby ensuring safe and smooth traffic flow, and it does not aim at restoring victims’ damage. In this case, measures to be taken by drivers are to be adequately taken according to the specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures is to be ordinarily required in light of a sound form. Such measures are not necessarily required for the driver himself/herself of the accident, and are unlikely to take relief measures, etc. by others first before leaving the site or going through a person under his/her control (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1738, Oct. 11, 2007).

1) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s vehicle went back to the uppermost after shocking the right edge of the road.

2) The Defendant called his director company immediately after the instant case, and the E and F, who is an employee, were in the accident scene.