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

On June 9, 2012, the Defendant, at around 00:30 on June 9, 2012, driven a Bco-do Purpose Vehicle, and continued to drive the Bco-do Purpose Road in front of the Bco-do Purpose Campaign in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon University, in the direction of the Yongsan-gu Public Security Center from the fourth distance of Daejeon University.

However, at night, the above road is a one-lane road, and since pedestrians could cross the road because of the concentration of commercial buildings such as main points in both sides of the road, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving a motor vehicle as a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle with due care to live well and safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and went beyond the victim C (23 years old) and D (23 years old) who crossed the above road due to the negligence of the Defendant’s failure, and went beyond the front side of the Defendant’s driving vehicle.

The Defendant, due to the above occupational negligence, suffered from the victim C the left-hand salt fresh, etc. requiring a stability for about 20 days on the left-hand fresh, etc., and the victim D suffered a light salt fresh, etc. requiring a stability for about 20 days, but escaped without taking necessary measures, such as immediately stopping and aiding the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police with respect to C and D;

1. A traffic accident report (1) a survey report on actual condition and a traffic accident report (2) a survey report on actual condition;

1. Photographs, such as on-site and witness, and vehicles;

1. Request for genetic testing, genetic analysis and appraisal report;

1. Application of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes of C and D of each written diagnosis (in investigative records, 54, 55 pages);

1. Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on 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 reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act lies in the confession and favor of the Defendant from the prosecutor’s investigation to the court. However, not only the victims but also the recovery of damage.