The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor’s appeal: (b) the central separation cost was damaged to the extent that the central separation cost would be approximately one million won by shocking the central separation zone with the vehicle; (c) the Defendant left the one-way road immediately after the accident and left the place after the accident; and (d) the time of the accident may have been caused by the Defendant’s vehicle left the center of the road due to the Defendant’s vehicle left the center of the new wall at around 3: (a) the Defendant cannot be deemed to have taken all necessary measures to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic dangers and obstacles as prescribed in

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and affected the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who is engaged in driving of BF car owned by the Defendant, and around October 16, 2014, the Defendant driving of the said car at around 03:40 on October 16, 2014, led to the following two-lanes depending on the nd section of the national road 3rd in Gwangju City, which is located in Gwangju City, along the erode of the two-lanes.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by safely driving the motor vehicle by checking the front side and the left side.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and neglected to neglect the situation prior to the death.

The separation zone established in the center of the road has been conflicted on the left side of the defendant's vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Defendant, by negligence in the course of performing his duties, destroyed the unclaimed property of the repair cost.

Although the Defendant damaged another person's property due to the above traffic accident, it was necessary to take necessary measures such as confirming the damage, the Defendant left the Defendant's vehicle on the road without taking any measures, and escaped as it is.

B. The lower court’s determination is that of this case.