(b) Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

Residence Gyeongbuk

Reference domicile Daegu

1. Around December 21, 2008:02:15, the Defendant charged three-lanes of the 4th parallel road of the middle East-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si

Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent in neglecting the above duty of care, and the victim ** is driving prior to the same room ** is found late after a passenger car temporarily stops in accordance with the intersection stop signal. However, the Defendant was found to have been in front of the passenger car due to insufficient part of the passenger car.

The Defendant, through occupational negligence above, sustained the injury to the affected party and the affected party on the said car, such as catitis, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, and the injured party **** the injured party ****** the injured party of catitis, etc. requiring approximately three weeks of medical treatment, and at the same time, escaped without taking necessary measures such as providing relief to the victims, etc., by immediately stopping the damaged vehicle, even though it damages the 687,016 cost of repair.

2. The Defendant continued to flee even after the accident as referred to in paragraph 1, and was parked in the middle of the Daegu Suwon-dong on the same day at around 02:30 on the front day of the victim's driver's license, who was standing in front of the traffic signal in front of the traffic signal at the same time * in order to find out and avoid the car late later, but was insufficient, the part on the front part of the victim's driver's license was received as part on the front part of the passenger's license.

The Defendant, as above, *****, the victim who is a driver in occupational negligence as well as his passenger, suffered from the injury of climatic salt, etc., which requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment, and at the same time, escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victims, even though the damaged motor vehicle was damaged to the volume of KRW 919,378 for repair cost, and immediately stops.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1.** Each police statement of the police about **

1. Each actual survey report, etc.;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. Written estimate;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 5-3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the point of escape after the injury by occupational negligence), Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of absence after the accident)

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code

3. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

4. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

5. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act has been covered by a comprehensive insurance, and the victims and the victims have agreed smoothly)

6. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Main Grounds for Sentencing

After receiving a summary order (fine 5,00,000) issued on October 16, 2008 due to the same crime committed by the Defendant on July 19, 2008, the Defendant applied for formal trial against the Defendant, and received a writ of summons (date of public trial: January 20, 2009) of the Defendant on October 30, 2008. As above, the Defendant was committed each of the crimes of this case in front of criminal trials, such as receiving a notice of the trial date due to the same crime, while continuing to flee until the time after following the first accident, and continuing to stop other accidents without stopping, and the Defendant could not cause serious damage to the Defendant’s vehicle or vehicle during that process, and the Defendant could not cause serious damage to the Defendant’s vehicle or vehicle, as well as remaining at the end of the accident without stopping.

Although the above circumstances are not good, there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that a sea-going vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance, and that there is an agreement with the victims, the defendant should be sentenced to the same punishment as the order.