The defendant is innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who is engaged in driving a three-dimensional passenger car.

On December 27, 2012, the Defendant driven the said car at around 23:14, and proceeded at a speed of about 50km from the two service distance to the front of the Geum apartment road, which is in front of the crew's operation at a summer. Since it is at night and around the apartment, it is around the apartment at night, the Defendant, who is engaged in driving a motor vehicle, was negligent in performing the duty of care to accurately manipulate the front left, and prevent the accident by accurately operating the steering and steering gear, and was negligent in doing so. The Defendant did not discover the victim D (n, 44 years old) who was under the influence of alcohol at the front direction of the Defendant's course, and was driven by the said motor vehicle by the Defendant.

Accordingly, even though the defendant caused the death of the victim through occupational injury above, he did not immediately stop and check the damage situation, and escaped without taking necessary measures.

2. Determination

A. The facts charged of this case are based on the premise that the defendant has occupational negligence in relation to the above traffic accident, and thus, we first examine this.

(b) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not be deemed to have a duty of care to the extent that he/she could avoid the result of the occurrence of an occurrence of an exceptional situation which is not expected and difficult for him/her to anticipate and prepare for it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 85Do833 delivered on July 9, 1985, etc.). C.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court, namely, the road in which the instant accident occurred is a four-way road along which vehicle traffic is frequent at night, and it is about 20 meters from the location of the instant accident to the seat of the stone hold-distance.