The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. The Defendant is a CF driver.

On December 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) 02:20 on December 7, 2014, the part on which the Defendant loaded the part on the left side of the Victim F’s Gpoter, which was parked on the left side of the route of the operation from the direction of the operation to the World Cup, was shocked by the front part of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

A driver who caused an accident had a duty to take any and all measures after confirming whether a traffic obstacle or danger has occurred.

2. The purport of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic dangers and obstacles occurring on roads to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, not to restore victims' damage. In such cases, measures to be taken by drivers shall be taken appropriately according to specific circumstances, such as the details of accidents and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures shall be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound cultivation;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do787, May 14, 2009). According to the records, the Defendant’s vehicle driving on the Kank-si Kank-si on December 7, 2014 and was parked on the left side of the running direction from e-mail to Kan-si Do, on the left side of the vehicle in front of the Defendant’s left side; the place of the accident is the front side of the vehicle; the place of the accident is the house; the Kan-si fell on both vehicles but did not interfere with traffic (Evidence Record 10-12, 22). The Defendant’s receipt of the accident (Evidence Record 22, 27 pages) by the police and the insurance company around 12 p.m. on the day of the accident.

In addition, the defendant, immediately after the accident, established his own vehicle at a place less than 30-50 meters away from the place of the accident, and confirmed whether there is a telephone number on the damaged vehicle.