If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Some of the facts charged were corrected.

On June 8, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to four years of imprisonment with prison labor for violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Gwangju District Court on September 7, 2017 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 7, 2017.

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a vehicle BM5 vehicle in accordance with the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident) and the Road Traffic Act;

The Defendant, at around 20:20 on May 25, 2016, at the “D” parking lot located in Busan City, the Seoul Regional Police Agency Yangsan Police Station investigation and E affiliated F, to park a H car owned by the victim G and arrest the Defendant at suspicion of violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence), thereby failing to operate the steering gear and operation manual accurately while driving a vehicle of the victim 5, the Defendant: (a) taken the highest typ car as the front driver of the Defendant’s vehicle; (b) repeated the vehicle back, and parked in the above parking lot, and (c) took the Defendant’s vehicle owned by the victim IK3 passenger car owned by the victim JJ; (d) K Hayst or other car owned by the victim JJ; and (e) the victim A Hah Hah L car owned by the victim L car in each direction, and (e) took the front of the driver’s vehicle owned by the victim during the Busan City Police Station, and (e) received the victim’s temporary stop in front of the victim.

Ultimately, even though the Defendant damaged five damaged vehicles by occupational negligence as above, it did not immediately stop and take necessary measures, and escaped without taking necessary measures, even though the Defendant destroyed the five damaged vehicles equivalent to the sum of 4,00,000 won for repair.

2. No person who violates the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation shall operate any motor vehicle on a road which is not covered by mandatory insurance except for the motor vehicles prescribed by the Presidential Decree;

Nevertheless, the Defendant owned a BM5 car and operated the said car that was not covered by mandatory insurance as described in paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1..