If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a car at C mother.

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant operated the above car at around 22:07, and proceeded with the three-lane roads in front of Samsung SDR, which are located in the 2-lane of the Handong-gu, Seo-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, the South East City Science Industry.

At night and its location is operated by yellow flickering signal apparatus, so a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle is obliged to safely drive the motor vehicle at a speed prior to its entry into the intersection by reducing the speed prior to its entry into the intersection and to prevent the accident by driving the motor vehicle safely.

Nevertheless, the defendant's negligence, while neglecting the front city, led the victim D (23 ) who passed the intersection from the left side of the running direction to the right side of the defendant's vehicle driving the E-learning car, which was driven by the victim D (23 ) to the right side, to the right part of the defendant's right part.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as catitiss, which requires medical treatment for about two weeks due to occupational negligence as above. At the same time, the Defendant, while destroying the said c,713,147 car to be repaired, failed to take necessary measures, such as providing relief to the injured party by immediately stopping it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A survey report on actual condition and a photograph of an accident (a photograph taken at the time of reporting);

1. Fluorging a black stuff, cutting a fluore image, cutting a bluore image fluor;

1. Damage photographs of the Mad learning vehicle, and damage photographs of the Mad-2 Mad non-vehicle;

1. A medical certificate, quotation, and quotation (Mad-1 Mad-learning Vehicle), (Mad-2 Mad-2) (the Defendant did not recognize the occurrence of an accident, and denies the Defendant’s intention of escape.

If the defendant denies the intention which is an in-depth fact, it is proved by the nature of the object.