The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaged in driving a passenger car owned by the Defendant.

On July 6, 2014, the Defendant driven the above-mentioned vehicle on July 6, 2014, and proceeded at an aesthetic speed on the road leading to the common view of Gwangju-dong, Seo-gu.

There was a parking room installed for parking management on the road.

In such cases, the driver of a motor vehicle shall accurately operate the steering system, brakes, and other devices of the motor vehicle, and shall not drive the motor vehicle at a speed or in such a manner as to inflict any danger and injury on others according to the traffic situation of the road and the structure and performance of the motor vehicle, and there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by driving the motor vehicle safely

Nevertheless, the defendant is negligent in doing so and is proceeding.

Parking a parking lot was shocked in front of the defendant vehicle.

The defendant did not take necessary measures at the site after destroying property equivalent to KRW 4.5 million in the cost of repairing the above facilities due to these occupational negligence.

2. Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver and other crew members of a motor vehicle shall immediately stop the motor vehicle and take necessary measures, such as providing assistance to casualties when they cause casualties or damage to things due to the traffic of the motor vehicle, such as driving of the motor vehicle;

The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on roads to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, not to restore damage to victims. In such cases, measures to be taken by drivers shall be appropriately taken 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 forms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do787 decided May 14, 2009, etc.). The records of this case are recorded.