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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a B-Wood vehicle.

On October 2, 2019, the Defendant driven the above car at a speed of Si/Si/Gun according to the two-lanes of Si/Si/Gun/Gu from the underground map of Si/Gun/Gu to the two-lanes.

At the time, since it is night, and it is a private-distance intersection where signal lights are installed, the driver of the motor vehicle had a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle in accordance with the new code and live well in the front and rear left.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and received the front part of the victim C(the 61-year-old 61-year-old cab) driving in accordance with the new code from the right side of the Defendant's running direction by negligence, which was immediately due to the fact that the electric traffic was suspended, from the Defendant's driving.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the above victim due to the above occupational negligence during about two weeks, such as a scarcity, and at the same time, destroyed the above K5-si to have approximately KRW 2,276,404 of the repair cost, and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim, even though it was immediately stopped.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing accident site photographs;

1. Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes related to the crime, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of failing to take measures after the accident);

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of the provisional payment order is not very good for the crime, and there is no possibility for the defendant to have any change in the circumstance where the defendant escaped.