The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a CM car.

On April 29, 2011, the Defendant driven the said car on April 20:35, and proceeded at a speed of about 20 km in the speed of about 20 km in the speed of 10 km from the border where the road of the Roman-si, Young-gu, Young-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City is located in the interest of Sinwon-gu.

At the time, since the Defendant was engaged in driving of a motor vehicle, there was a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle and prevent the accident by safely examining whether there is a person who dried the road in good manner.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded slowly without examining the front side of the said vehicle, and received the chest part of the victim D (the 44 years old) where the Defendant was flicking a road near the center line from the left side of the left side of the said vehicle, towards the right side of the road.

The Defendant, due to the above occupational negligence, sustained injuries, such as duplicating and closing a duplic cage, including three lupages that require approximately six weeks of medical treatment, and the Defendant immediately stopped and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victims.

2. The Defendant, immediately after the accident, denies that he did not intend to move or stop the vehicle before the arrival of the 119 first-aid vehicle after checking the state of the victim who was landed from the vehicle.

On the other hand, evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case reveals that the defendant, who is the husband of the victim, was unable to move the vehicle at the scene, that it was "the low escape of the vehicle." The victim's partial statement in E, the husband of the police, and the statement in E, the victim's statement in the police, the investigation report that 0.05% was detected as a result of the alcohol alcohol measurement against the defendant, the defendant stated that the defendant was well aware of whether the sea vehicle was covered by the comprehensive insurance, and F, the police officer's part of the court statement.