If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On November 2, 2012, at around 12:30 on November 2, 2012, the Defendant driving of the Eco-do cargo vehicle, and proceeding two lanes from the side of Gwangju metropolitan area to the white-line line. The Defendant, at around 12:30 on November 2, 201, is driving along two lanes from the side of Gwangju metropolitan area.

In order to move to the right side of the south Mine, the two lanes have been changed to the three-lanes, and the traffic situation has been well examined, and the traffic situation has been changed to a safe way and has been negligent in performing the duty of care to prevent accidents and has been changed to the three-lanes due to the negligence of changing the three-lanes, the G G GG driver of the victim FranxG and the penter in the right side of the Defendant vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered from an injury to the victim F by negligence in the above occupational negligence in the need of a medical treatment for about two weeks, and caused the injury to the victim H, who boarded the damaged vehicle, without necessary measures, such as providing rescue to the victim I, by immediately stopping the victim I, while suffering from an injury to the scopical base, the scopical base, the scopical base, and the scopical base, and the scopical base, the scopical base, the scopic base, and the scopic base.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness J, F, I, and H;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. Application of the practical survey report and evidence on the scene of traffic accident-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged to the effect that it is difficult to view that the defendant had a criminal intent to flee at the time of the accident of this case. However, in light of the following circumstances at the time of the accident of this case, the defendant's defense counsel's intention to flee.