The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be 2,00,000 won.

Defendant. A fine.

1. The reason for appeal was that the defendant has taken measures to the extent normally required after the accident;

Although it cannot be seen, the court below accepted the defendant's defense that he did not go to the hospital for treatment after having requested the handling of the accident, and found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person engaging in driving Cex vehicles.

On November 5, 2015, the Defendant driven a vehicle at around 23:05, and proceeded at a speed from the entrance side of the entrance side of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, at which it is impossible to know to the end of the ambling.

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 got a flower on the right side of the road by negligence.

The Defendant did not immediately stop and take necessary measures, even if he did so so that the amount of approximately KRW 521,000 of the repair cost is damaged by occupational negligence as above, and the Defendant fleded without taking necessary measures.

B. 1) According to the statement of the Defendant and E by the lower court, the Defendant fleded to the hospital, since the Defendant asked his/her employees to handle the accident, after having asked him/her to do so.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted by the court’s determination, in particular the witness P and I’s respective legal statements, the arrival at the scene of the accident by E, etc., unlike the defendant’s assertion, seems to have occurred after the accident involving two vehicles and one price per cubic part due to the bricks, etc. scattered on the road caused by the defendant, in contrast to the defendant’s assertion.

It is true that the defendant was in a hospital to the extent that he would have received urgent medical treatment.

There is no data to view.