The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On September 25, 2017, the Defendant: (a) driven a Bchip car around 12:15 on September 25, 2017; and (b) proceeded along one-lane between the two-lanes from the surface of the original city C apartment to the private distance of underground commercial buildings from the surface of the D apartment.

Although the Defendant, who was engaged in driving of a motor vehicle, has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle, the Defendant neglected it by negligence in the course of duty, taken the part of the fK5 vehicle’s driving seat on the right side of the Defendant’s driving vehicle in the FK5 vehicle of the victim E(60) driving on a two-lane, and escaped without taking necessary measures by immediately stopping the part of the 84,400 won of the damaged vehicle.

2. The purport 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. In this case, measures to be taken by the driver should be appropriately taken according to the specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree of measures normally required in light of sound form (Supreme Court Decision 2017Do9828 Decided October 26, 2017). According to the records, the accident in this case was a minor shock to the extent that the accident in this case was blick to the extent that the accident in this case was blickly 90,00 won, and the repair cost was 90,00 won. The accident in this case was scattered along with products, etc. on the road in this case to ensure safe and smooth traffic, and there was no evidence to acknowledge the facts charged in this case, and there was no evidence to prove otherwise.

3. Conclusion, the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts.