Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Of the facts charged, the charge of violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident) is not guilty.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who is engaged in driving a passenger car in Bsch Rexroth ES350.
On April 21, 2017, the Defendant moved to C hotel from the side of the headquarters of the 2nd group of the KF, the NF of NFF, the Han-gu, Daegu Suwon-gu, Mangyeongdong on April 21, 2017, along the two-lanes between the three-lanes.
Since there was a cross-section and there was a vehicle bypassing to the right side of the road, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to make a bypass while driving along the right side of the road.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not find out the victim D(30) driving vehicle, which was by negligence moving right at the right edge of the road at the second lane, and did not find the victim D(30) driving vehicle, and received the front part of the victim's driver's seat as a part more than the fences after the head of the Defendant's driving vehicle.
As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as finites, which requires treatment for about two weeks due to the above occupational negligence, and at the same time, destroyed the victim’s vehicle to have the repair cost of KRW 633,125, and escaped without immediately stopping the vehicle and taking necessary measures.
2. Judgment of the court below and a summary of the grounds for appeal
A. The lower court determined that the lower court convicted all of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence.
B. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not recognize the instant accident and only did it go without recognizing it.
The degree of the injured party's wife is minor and does not constitute an injury.
The accident of this case did not cause any danger and impediment to traffic.
3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence investigated by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to consider that the defendant escaped without taking relief measures, etc. while recognizing the fact that the defendant was injured by the accident of this case and the victim therefrom.