When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant was a driver of a passenger car volume Ci30, and the Defendant was a driver of a passenger car volume, who was in front of the Ethmbox located in D around 10:05 on September 10, 2016, and was in front of the Ethmbronon in front of the Eths, located in D at an elementary school located in the same Eup/Myeon located in the same time.

In such a case, the defendant had a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately operating the steering direction and brakes well, and to prevent accidents.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and went away without taking any on-site measures after causing an accident of injury requiring about two weeks of medical treatment by driving the victim's left side of the FF (59 e.g., the driver's vehicle of the Defendant's driver's vehicle with the front wheels of the CA car auxiliary seat, the vehicle of the Defendant's driver's vehicle, and driving the victim's vehicle with the front wheels of the CA car auxiliary seat, which is the vehicle of the victim's driver's vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Medical certificate (F);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report the occurrence of traffic accidents;

1. Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act and selection of fines concerning the crime;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, although the Defendant was unable to perform his duty of care required for the driver at the time of the instant accident, resulting in an accident that led to the occurrence of the victim’s occurrence, the Defendant’s occurrence of the injury immediately after checking the state of damage done on the instant vehicle and leaving the site as it is without taking relief measures, the Defendant’s acknowledgement of the instant crime is against the Defendant, and the Defendant thought that the accident was caused by the victim’s negligence rather than his fault at the time of the instant accident.